Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.

Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.

The consensus of scholars, including non-Christian scholars, is that a historical Jesus most likely existed and the later stories about “Jesus Christ” were told about him.  The idea that there was no such historical person at all and that “Jesus Christ” was a purely mythical figure has been posited in one form or another since the eighteenth century, but is not taken seriously by anyone but a tiny handful of fringe scholars and amateurs.  Despite this, the Jesus Myth thesis is accepted by remarkable number of New Atheists, including Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, and is regarded with favour by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.  Christopher Hitchens had some hesitations about it, but generally considered it reasonable.  This blog has already tackled some of the prominent proponents of the Mythicist thesis, such as Dave Fitzgerald and, of course, the inevitable pseudo historian Richard Carrier, but here is a summary of why Mythicism is not accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars.  Please note that this article refers to the likely existence of a historical person about whom the later gospel stories were told.  The issue of whether those stories – complete with their alleged miracles, supposedly fulfilled prophecies and reported visions and apparitions – are historical is a different question.  The existence of a historical Jewish preacher and the existence of the “Jesus of the gospels” are not the same thing.

Background

Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure “Jesus Christ” is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don’t accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Many may be more cautious about using the term “historical fact” about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that.  But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

The opposite idea – that there was no historical Jesus at all and that “Jesus Christ” developed out of some purely mythic ideas about a non-historical, non-existent figure – has had a chequered history over the last 200 years, but has usually been a marginal idea at best.  Its heyday was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when it seemed to fit with some early anthropological ideas about religions evolving along parallel patterns and being based on shared archetypes, as characterised by Sir James Frazer’s influential comparative religion study The Golden Bough (1890). But it fell out of favour as the twentieth century progressed and was barely held by any scholars at all by the 1960s.

More recently the “Jesus Myth” hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging and “print on demand” self-publishing services.  But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence and almost all have clear ideological objectives.  Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (i) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (ii) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their “exposure” of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity.  Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).

Unconvincing Arguments for a Mythic Origin for Jesus

Many of the arguments for a Mythic Jesus that some laypeople think sound highly convincing  are exactly the same ones that scholars consider laughably weak, even though they sound plausible to those without a sound background in the study of the first century.  For example:

1.  “There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus.  There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed.”

This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily.  So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus.

But our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous – they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.  Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.

For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal.  He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today.  Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have?  Zero.  We have none.  So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him?  Clearly it does not.

So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it’s actually extremely weak.

2.  “The ancient writer X should have mentioned this Jesus, yet he doesn’t do so.  This silence shows that no Jesus existed.”

An “argument from silence” is a tricky thing to use effectively.  To do so, it’s not enough to show that a writer, account or source is silent on a given point – you also have to show that it shouldn’t be before  this silence can be given any significance.  So if someone claims their grandfather met Winston Churchill yet a thorough search of the grandfather’s letters and diaries of the time shows no mention of this meeting, a solid argument from silence could be presented to say that the meeting never happened.  This is because we could expect such a meeting to be mentioned in those documents.

Some “Jesus Mythicists” have tried to argue that certain ancient writers “should” have mentioned Jesus and did not and so tried to make an argument from silence on this basis.  In 1909 the American “freethinker” John Remsberg came up with a list of 42 ancient writers that he claimed “should” have mentioned Jesus and concluded their silence suggested Jesus may never have existed.  But the list has been widely criticised for being contrived and fanciful.  Why exactly, for example, Lucanus – a writer whose works consist of a single poem and a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (in the century before Jesus’ time) “should” have mentioned Jesus is hard to see.  And the same can be said for most of the other writers on Remsberg’s list.

Some others, however, are more reasonable at first glance.  Philo Judaeus was a Jew in Alexandria who wrote philosophy and theology and who was a contemporary of Jesus who also mentions events in Judea and makes reference to other figures we know from the gospel accounts, such as Pontius Pilate.  So it makes far more sense that he “should” mention Jesus than some poets in far off Rome.  But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many.  If Philo had mentioned Anthronges and Theudas, or Hillel and Honi or John the Baptist and the “Samaritan Prophet” but didn’t mention Jesus, then a solid argument from silence could be made.  But given that Philo seems to have had no interest at all in any of the various people like Jesus, the fact that he doesn’t mention Jesus either carries little or no weight.

In fact, there is only one writer of the time who had any interest in such figures, who also had little interest for Roman and Greek writers.  He was the Jewish historian Josephus, who is our sole source for virtually all of the Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of this time.  If there is any writer who should mention Jesus, it’s Josephus.  The problem for the “Jesus Mythicists” is … he does.  Twice, in fact.  He does do so in Antiquities XVIII.63-64 and again in Antiquities XX.200.  Mythicists take comfort in the fact that the first of these references has been added to by later Christian scribes, so they dismiss it as a wholesale interpolation.  But the majority of modern scholars disagree, arguing there is solid evidence to believe that Josephus did make a mention of Jesus here and that it was added to by Christians to help bolster their arguments against Jewish opponents.  That debate aside, the Antiquities XX.200 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine by Josephus scholars and that alone sinks the Mythicist case (see below for more details).

3.  “The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being.  There are no references to an earthly Jesus in any of the earliest New Testament texts, the letters of Paul.”

Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well.  Except it simply isn’t true.  While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn’t giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus’ earthly life in many places.  He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a “human nature” and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that he was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4).And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19).

So Mythicist theorists then have to tie themselves in knots to “explain” how, in fact, a clear reference to Jesus being “born of a woman” actually means he wasn’t born of a woman and how when Paul says Jesus was “according to the flesh, a descendant of King David” this doesn’t mean he was a human and the human descendant of a human king.  These contrived arguments are so weak they tend to only convince the already convinced.  It’s this kind of contrivance that consigns this thesis to the fringe.

The Problems with a “Mythic” Origin to the Jesus Story

The weaknesses of the Mythicist hypothesis multiply when its proponents turn to coming up with their own explanation as to how the Jesus stories did arise if there was no historical Jesus.  Of course, many of them don’t really bother much with presenting an alternative explanation and leave their ideas about exactly how this happened conveniently vague.  But some realise that we have late First Century stories that all claim there was an early First Century person who lived within living memory  and then make a series of claims about him.  If there was no such person, the Mythicist does need to explain how the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do. And they need to do so in a way that accounts for the evidence better than the parsimonious idea that this was believed because there was such a person.  This is where Mythicism really falls down.  The Mythicist theories fall into four main categories:

1. “Jesus was an amalgam of earlier pagan myths, brought together into a mythic figure of a god-man and saviour of a kind found in many cults of the time.”

This is the explanation offered by the New Age writer who calls herself “Acharya S” in a series of self-published books beginning with The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999).  Working from late nineteenth and early twentieth century  theosophist claims which exaggerate parallels between the Jesus stories and pagan myths, she makes the typical New Age logical leap from “similarity” to “parallel” and finally to “connection” and “causation”.  Leaving aside the fact that many of these “parallels” are highly strained, with any miraculous conception or birth story becoming a “virgin birth” or anything to do with a death or a tree becoming a “crucifixion” (even if virginity or a cross is not involved in either), it is very hard to make the final leap from “parallel” to “causation”.

This is particularly hard because of the masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews – a group for whom the idea of adopting anything “pagan” would have been utterly horrific.  These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theatres because of their association with pagan culture.  All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group.  To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn’t exist) and then turn around and forget he didn’t exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis.

2.  “Jesus was a celestial being who existed in a realm just below the lunar sphere and was not considered an earthly being at all until later.”

This is the theory presented by another self-published Mythicist author, Earl Doherty, first in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and then in Jesus : Neither God nor Man (2009).  Doherty’s theory has several main flaws.  Firstly, he claims that this mythic/celestial Jesus was based on a Middle Platonic view of  the cosmos that held that there was a “fleshly sub-lunar realm” in the heavens where gods and celestial beings lived and acted out mythic events.  This is the realm, Doherty claims, in which it was believed that Mithras slew the cosmic bull, where Attis lived and died and where Jesus was crucified and rose again.  The problem here is Doherty does very little to back up this claim and, while non-specialist readers may not realise this from the way he presents this idea, it is not something accepted by historians of ancient thought but actually a hypothesis developed entirely by Doherty himself.  He makes it seem like this idea is common knowledge amongst specialists in Middle Platonic philosophy, while never quite spelling out that it’s something he’s made up. The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has concluded:

“… the plausibility of D[oherty]’s hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism.

Secondly, Doherty’s thesis requires the earliest Christian writings about Jesus, the letters of Paul, to be about this “celestial/mythic Jesus” and not a historical, earthly one.  Except, as has been pointed out above, Paul’s letters do contain a great many references to an earthly Jesus that don’t fit with Doherty’s hypothesis at all.  Doherty has devoted a vast number of words in both his books “explaining” ways that these references can be read so that his thesis does not collapse, but these are contrived and in places quite fanciful.

Finally, Doherty’s explanations as to how this “celestial/mythic Jesus” sect gave rise to a “historical/earthly Jesus” sect and then promptly disappeared without trace strain credulity.  Despite being the original form of Christianity and despite surviving, according to Doherty, well into the Second Century, this celestial Jesus sect vanished without leaving any evidence of its existence behind and was undreamed of until Doherty came along and deduced that it had once existed.  This is very difficult to believe.  Early Christianity was a diverse, divided and quarrelsome faith, with a wide variety of sub-sects, offshoots and “heresies”, all arguing with each other and battling for supremacy.   What eventually emerged from this riot of Christianities was a form of “orthodoxy” that had all the elements of Christianity today: the Trinity, Jesus as the divine incarnate, a physical resurrection etc.  But we know of many of the other rivals to this orthodoxy largely thanks to orthodox writings attacking them and refuting their claims and doctrines.  Doherty expects us to believe that despite all these apologetic literature condemning and refuting a wide range of “heresies” there is not one that bothers to even mention this original Christianity that taught Jesus was never on earth at all.  This beggar’s belief.

Doherty’s thesis is much more popular amongst atheists than the New Age imaginings of “Acharya S” but has had no impact on the academic sphere partly because self-published hobbyist efforts don’t get much attention, but mainly because of the flaws noted above.  Doherty and his followers maintain, of course, that it’s because of a kind of academic conspiracy, much as Creationists and Holocaust deniers do.

3.  “Jesus began as an allegorical, symbolic figure of the Messiah who got ‘historicised’ into an actual person despite the fact he never really existed”

This idea has been presented in most detail by another amateur theorist in yet another self-published book: R.G. Price’s Jesus – A Very Jewish Myth (2007).  Unlike “Acharya S” and, to a lesser extent Doherty, Price at least takes account of the fact that the Jesus stories and the first members of the Jesus sect are completely and fundamentally Jewish, so fantasies about Egyptian myths or Greek Middle Platonic philosophy are not going to work as points of origin for them.  According to this version of Jesus Mythicism, Jesus was an idealisation of what the Messiah was to be like who got turned into a historical figure largely by mistake and misunderstanding.

Several of the same objections to Doherty’s thesis can be made about this one – if this was the case, why are there no remnants of debates with or condemnations of those who believed the earlier version and maintained there was no historical Jesus at all?  And why don’t any of Christianity’s enemies use the fact that the original Jesus sect didn’t believe in a historical Jesus as an argument against the new version of the sect?  Did everyone just forget?

More tellingly, if the Jesus stories arose out of ideas about and expectations of the Messiah, it is very odd that Jesus doesn’t fit those expectations better.  Despite Christian claims to the contrary, the first Christians had to work very hard to convince fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah precisely because he didn’t conform to these expectations. Most importantly, there was absolutely no tradition or Messianic expectation that told of the Messiah being executed and then rising from the dead – this first appears with Christianity and has no Jewish precedent at all.  Far from evolving from established Messianic prophecies and known elements in the scripture, the first Christians had to scramble to find anything at all which looked vaguely like a “prophecy” of this unexpected and highly unMessianic event.

That the centre and climax of the story of Jesus would be based on his shameful execution and death makes no sense if it evolved out of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, since they contained nothing about any such idea.  This climax to the story only makes sense if it actually happened, and then his followers had to find totally new and largely strained and contrived “scriptures” which they then claimed “predicted” this outcome, against all previous expectation.  Price’s thesis fails because Jesus’ story doesn’t conform to Jewish myths enough.

4. “Jesus was not a Jewish preacher at all but was someone else or an amalgam of people combined into one figure in the Christian tradition”

This is the least popular of the Jesus Myth hypotheses, but versions of it are argued by Italian amateur theorist Francesco Carotta (Jesus was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity. An Investigative Report – 2005), computer programmer Joseph Atwill (Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus – 2005) and accountant Daniel Unterbrink (Judas the Galilean: The Flesh and Blood Jesus – 2004).  Carotta claims Jesus was actually Julius Caesar and imposed on Jewish tradition as part of the cult of the Divius Julius.  Atwill claims Jesus was invented by the Emperor Titus and imposed on Judaism in the same way.  Neither do a very good job of substantiating these claims or of explaining why the Romans then turned around, as early as 64 AD (fifteen years before Titus became emperor) and began persecuting the cult they supposedly created.  No scholar takes these theories or that of Unterbrink seriously.

No scholar also argues that Jesus was an amalgam of various Jewish preachers or other figures of the time.  That is because there is nothing in the evidence to indicate this.  This idea has never been argued in any detailed form by anyone at all, scholar or Jesus myth amateur theorist, but it is something some who don’t want to subscribe to the idea that “Jesus Christ” was based on a real person resorts to so that they can put some sceptical distance between the Christian claims and anything or anyone historical.  It seems to be a purely rhetorically-based idea, with no substance and no argument behind it.

So What’s the Evidence for the Existence of a Historical Jesus?

Many Christians accept a historical Jesus existed because they never thought to question the idea in the first place or because they are convinced that the gospels can be read as (more or less) historical accounts and so don’t need to be seriously doubted on this point.  But why do the overwhelming majority of non-Christian scholars also accept that he existed?

The Total Lack of Evidence for a “Mythic Christianity”

Essentially, it’s because it’s the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have.  Early Christianity, in all its forms, and the critics of early Christianity agree on virtually nothing about Jesus, except for one thing – that he existed as a historical person in the early first century.  If there really was an original form of Christianity that didn’t believe this, as all versions of the “Jesus Myth” idea require, then it makes no sense that there is no trace of it.  Such an idea would be a boon to the various Gnostic branches of Christianity, which emphasised his spiritual/mystical aspects and saw him as an emissary from a purely spiritual world to help us escape the physical dimension.  A totally non-historical, purely mystical Jesus would have suited their purposes perfectly.  Yet they never taught such a Jesus – they always depict him as a historical first century teacher, but argue that he was “pure spirit” and only had the “illusion of flesh”.  Why?  Because they couldn’t deny that he had existed as a historical person and there was no prior “mythic Jesus” tradition for them to draw on.

Similarly, the memory of an earlier, original Christianity which didn’t believe in a historical Jesus would have been a killer argument for the many Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity.  Jesus Mythicists claim this mythic Jesus Christianity survived well into the second or even third century.  We have orthodox Christian responses to critiques by Jews and pagans from that period, by Justin Martyr, Origen and Minucius Felix.  They try to confront and answer the arguments their critics make about Jesus – that he was a fool, a magician, a bastard son of a Roman soldier, a fraud etc – but none of these apologetic works mention so much as a hint that anyone ever claimed he never existed.  If a whole branch of Christianity existed that claimed just this, why did it pass totally unnoticed by these critics? Clearly no such earlier “mythic Jesus” proto-Christianity existed – it is a creation of the modern Jesus Mythicist activists to prop up their theory.

Indicators of Historicity in the Gospels

The main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements which only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward.  As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 
Jesus replied, Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

So in these three examples we have three different versions of the same story written at three times in the early decades of Christianity.  All of them are dealing with the baptism of Jesus by John in different ways and trying to make it fit with their conceptions of Jesus and at least two of them are having some trouble doing so and are having to change the story to make it fit their ideas about Jesus.  All this indicates that the baptism of Jesus by John was a historical event and known to be such and so could not be left out of the story.  This left the later gospel writers with the problem of trying to make it fit their evolving ideas about who and what Jesus was.

There are several other elements in the gospels like this.  gLuke and gMatthew go to great lengths to tell stories which “explain” how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem despite being from Nazareth, since Micah 5:2 was taken to be a prophecy that the Messiah was to be from Bethlehem.  Both gospels, however, tell completely different, totally contradictory and mutually exclusive stories (one is even set ten years after the other) which all but the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge to be non-historical.  The question then arises: why did they go to this effort?  If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth, this makes sense.  Clearly some Jews objected to the claim Jesus was the Messiah on the grounds that he was from the insignificant village of Nazareth in Galilee and not from Bethlehem in Judea – John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection.  So it makes sense that Christian traditions would arise that “explain” how a man known to be a Galilean from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth – thus the contradictory stories in gLuke and gMatthew that have this as their end.

If, however, there was no historical Jesus then it is very hard to explain why an insignificant town like Nazareth is in the story at all.  If Jesus was a purely mythic figure and the stories of his life evolved out of expectations about the Messiah then he would be from Bethlehem, as was expected as a Messiah.  So why is Nazareth, a tiny place of no religious significance, in the story?  And why all the effort to get Jesus born in Bethlehem but keep Nazareth in the narrative?  The only reasonable explanation is that it’s Nazareth that is the historical element in these accounts – it is in the story because that is where he was from.  A historical Jesus explains the evidence far better than any “mythic” alternative.   

 

 

“Alexamenos worships his god” – A Roman graffito mocks the idea of a crucified god

But probably the best example of an element in the story which was so awkward for the early Christians that it simply has to be historical is the crucifixion. The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd.  According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was “hanged on a tree” was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews.  The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd.

It was equally weird to non-Jews.  Crucifixion was considered the most shameful and abhorrent of deaths, so much so that one of the privileges of Roman citizenship is that citizens could never be crucified.  The idea of a crucified god, therefore, was absurd and bizarre. This was so much the case that the early Christians avoided any depictions of Jesus on the cross – the first depictions of the Crucifixion appear in the fourth century, after Christian emperors banned crucifixion and it began to lose its stigma.  It’s significant that the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus that we have is a graffito from Rome showing a man worshipping a crucified figure with the head of a donkey with the  mocking caption “Alexamenos worships his god”.  The idea of a crucified god was, quite literally, ridiculous.  Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it “is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles”.

The accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah’s death was for the earliest Christians.  They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah.  But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced.  The “suffering servant” passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as “prophecies” of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be “pierced …. as a guilt offering”.  But the gospels don’t reference other parts of the same passage which don’t fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will “prolong his days and look upon his offspring”.

Clearly the gospel writers were going to some effort to find some kind of scriptural basis for this rather awkward death for their group’s leader, one that let them maintain their belief that he was the Messiah.  Again, this makes most sense if there was a historical Jesus and he was crucified, leaving his followers with this awkward problem.  If there was no historical Jesus at all, it becomes very difficult to explain where this bizarre, unprecedented and awkwardly inconvenient element in the story comes from.  It’s hard to see why anyone would invent the idea of a crucified Messiah and create these problems.  And given that there was no precedent for a crucified Messiah, it’s almost impossible to see this idea evolving out of earlier Jewish traditions.  The most logical explanation is that it’s in the story, despite its vast awkwardness, because it happened.

Non-Christian References to Jesus as Historical Figure

Many Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus.  This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the “Jesus Christ” of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses.  It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well.  So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others.  But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person – the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the “Christ” that was the focus of its worship.

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures.  And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time.  The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

Josephus

The Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the first century.  Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.63-64 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus’ brother James in Antiquities XX.200.  The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator.  Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation.  Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.

To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephan in their style and phrasing.  “Now (there was) about this time …” is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work.  There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as “a wise man”, but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel.  Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus’ miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral  term παραδόξων ἔργων – “paradoxa erga” or “paradoxical deeds”.  Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean “deeds that are difficult to interpret” and even has overtones of cautious scepticism.  Finally, the use of the word φῦλον (“phylon” – “race, tribe”) is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about nations or other distinct groups.  Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν (“Christianon” – “Christians”) every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus’ writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity.  Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts.  And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we’d expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer.  So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus’ phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.

As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places.  Louis H. Feldman’s Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.

Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years.  He concludes “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.”

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.200, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists.  In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man.  This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.

In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome.  This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed.  This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests.  But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus’ brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James’ execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which “Jesus who was called Messiah” Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand.  This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:

(i) “The words “who was called Messiah” are a later Christian interpolation” –

Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated.  Unfortunately this argument does not work.  This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-Third Century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words “Jesus who was called the Messiah” all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17.  Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου (“the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah”).  This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus.  If this phrase was in the passage in Origen’s time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.

This argument also requires Josephus to have initially referred to Jesus simply as “Jesus” with no identifying appellation and then later as “Jesus, son of Damneus”.  Except nowhere in his work does Josephus do this.  On the contrary he is very consistent: if he refers to someone with such an appellation he does so when he introduces that person to his narrative and then refers to them simply by their name if he mentions them again later in the same passage or anecdote.

(ii) “The Jesus being referred to here was not the Jesus of Christianity, but the ‘Jesus, son of Dameus’ mentioned later in the same passage.”

After detailing the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions that he was succeeded as High Priest by a certain “Jesus, son of Damneus”.  So Mythicists try to argue that this was the Jesus that Josephus was talking about earlier, since Jesus was a very common name.  It certainly was, but we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name.  So it makes more sense that he calls one “Jesus who was called Messiah” and the other “Jesus son of Damneus” to do precisely this.  Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires.  And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made High Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.

Mythicists are also still stuck with the phrase “who was called Messiah”, which Origen’s mentions show can’t be dismissed as an interpolation.  They usually attempt to argue that, as a High Priest, Jesus the son of Damenus would have been “called Messiah” because “Messiah” means ‘anointed” and priests were anointed with oil at their elevation.  Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get the Mythicist argument off the hook.  Therefore the references to “Jesus, who was called Messiah” and “Jesus, son of Damneus” are clearly Josephus using two different appellations in the way he usually does: to differentiate between two different people with the same common first name.

So the consensus of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that the Antiquities XVIII.63-64 passage is authentic despite some obvious later additions and the Antiquities XX.200 passage is wholly authentic.  These references alone give us about as much evidence for the existence of a historical “Jesus, who was called Messiah” as we have for comparable Jewish preachers and prophets and is actually sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source.

Tacitus

The mention of Jesus in the Annals of the aristocratic Roman historian and senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus is significant partly because of his status as one of the most careful and sceptical historians of the ancient world and partly because it is from what is obviously a hostile witness.  Tacitus absolutely despised Christianity, as he make clear when he mentions how the emperor Nero tried to scapegoat them after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.  He also gives an account to his readers as the origin of the Christian sect and their founder in Judea:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

Again, this clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists.  They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation.  But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect Second Century  Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.

A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all.  This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.

Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could.  He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:

My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay,and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it’s highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt.  He calls Christianity “a most mischievous superstition …. evil …. hideous and shameful …. (with a) hatred against mankind” – not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect’s founder.

Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus’ teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead.  On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred (“during the reign of Tiberius”) and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.

We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus.  But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects.  None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus.  There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.63-64, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.  Or he may have asked any of the many other aristocratic Jewish exiles at the court of Titus; such as the emperor’s mistress, Princess Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa.  These fellow aristocrats of his acquaintance would have been a far more obvious and, to him, reliable source Tacitus’ information rather than some peasant followers of a sect he despised.

Conclusion

The question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be “historical fact”.  The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world.  There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material.  Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam’s Razor  and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars.  The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.

(Note: A version of this article appeared on Quora, where it became the top-voted answer to the question “Do credible historians agree that the man named Jesus, who the Christian Bible speaks of, walked the earth and was put to death on a cross by Pilate, Roman governor of Judea?”.  In the time since I posted it there, it has been linked to and recommended on a variety of fora, but some people don’t like the fact they have to join Quora to read it.  So I am posting it here for those who would appreciate easier access to it.)

73 thoughts on “Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.

  1. Thanks Tim. Re:crucifixion – I’ve heard it said that Roman authors were so repulsed by crucifixion that the New Testament is pretty much the most detailed written documentation we have of it from this period. Is that fair?




    1



    0
    1. That could well be correct. There is still some doubt about exactly how crucifixions were carried out – the most common shape of the cross, how often victims were nailed rather than tied etc. – largely because actual descriptions are very rare. This could be because of revulsion, as you say, though it could also be because writers just assumed “everyone knew” the mechanics involved.




      1



      0
  2. Tim,
    Great article! I have often linked to your articles on the historicity of Jesus because I have always felt that you were better read and better studied than I have been and could better articulate the case that I can. I believe another reason for the historical Jesus can be added to your list. I am convinced that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic Jewish holy man. He seemed clearly convinced that the end of the world as they (fellow Jews) knew it was imminent and that he would return in the lifetime of his disciples.

    This didn’t happen. I have challenged mythicists to explain why, if the Christian faith was based on earlier myths or was a creation of whole clothe, why would the gospel authors create a mythical figure, historicize him, and ascribe a failed prophecy to him, only to then have to invent another myth to explain away the failed prophecy ( partial preterism, for instance). The idea of a real Jesus who just gave a failed prophecy that the later church invented a rationalization to keep the faith alive is a much simpler explanation.




    0



    0
  3. Dominican priest Thomas Brodie is not a fringe scholar and he takes a very different route to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is a literary creation and not a historical figure.

    It’s a complex and subtle argument, one which I can’t pretend to reduce to a paragraph here but in essence he finds a broad enough pattern within the Gospels and Acts of pericopes which are re-writes from earlier sources, principally the Elijah/Elisha narrative as it appears in the Septuagint but others as well, that he declares the whole thing to be based on earlier literary sources, not historical facts.

    He admits that there is much work to be done filling in gaps, but wonders why they would have rewritten old stories if they had historical facts, eyewitness accounts and such to work with. I don’t find it completely convincing, but it’s provocative and based on serious textual study. Brodie’s work is mostly scattered in scholarly journals but some four or five years back he wrote an autobiographical confession about his own journey to disbelief in the historical Jesus called, “Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.”

    Thinking of Abraham passing Sarah off as his sister and into the harem of Abimelech and then Isaac doing the same with Rebekah, I wonder if these texts about Jesus don’t fit better with other examples in scripture where we get the same stories over and over with different details.

    The strongest counter example I can think of would be Herodotus’ account of the battle of Thermopylae where death of Leonidas is portrayed as a highly stylized Homeric Aristeia even though we can be pretty sure that there was a historical battle in which a real king Leonidas of Sparta was killed.

    What’s your take on Brodie’s angle?

    And I have to point out, that nearly all historical Jesus scholars believe there was a historical Jesus is hardly surprising. They would, wouldn’t they? I’d bet most astrologers believe in astrology too.




    1



    6
  4. “Dominican priest Thomas Brodie is not a fringe scholar”

    Brodie is certainly a scholar in the relevant field, but even before his foray into Mythicism he was hardly a leading light. He was a very minor figure, at best.

    “in essence he finds a broad enough pattern within the Gospels and Acts of pericopes which are re-writes from earlier sources, principally the Elijah/Elisha narrative as it appears in the Septuagint but others as well, that he declares the whole thing to be based on earlier literary sources, not historical facts.”

    Pretty much everyone in the field acknowledges that the narratives in the gospels reflect Old Testament precedents and everyone except perhaps the most conservative fundamentalists acknowledges that these precedents shaped the story of Jesus. But it’s a leap to go from this to deciding that these “prophecies” and OT precedents are the whole cloth and that there was no historical Jesus at all. It makes perfect sense that Jews of this time would look to their scriptures and weave them into the story of their Messiah. It also makes sense that people who thought Jesus was the Messiah would interpret things he said and did with those scriptures in mind even at the time. It could even be that Jesus thought he was the Messiah and so did and said things that were in line with Messianic expectations and scripture. Put these things together and you are going to get a hell of a lot of OT parallels in any telling of his story.

    The problem with Brodie’s argument is that if there was no Jesus at all and the whole narrative is made up of these OT elements, it’s very odd that Jesus doesn’t fit Messianic expectations better. It’s also strange that we have elements that don’t seem to have any OT precedent or parallel but which have been shoehorned into the story anyway – his origin in Nazareth and Galilee is one of several of these.

    “The strongest counter example I can think of would be Herodotus’ account of the battle of Thermopylae where death of Leonidas is portrayed as a highly stylized Homeric Aristeia even though we can be pretty sure that there was a historical battle in which a real king Leonidas of Sparta was killed.”

    I can think of dozens of others. Ancient writers always wrote with one eye on earlier works and on tropes and formulae. To be surprised that we find exactly this in the gospels is naive. To base a theory on this surprise while ignoring counter evidence in the same text is a good way to ensure your theory isn’t taken very seriously. To my knowledge, Brodie has convinced no-one in the field.




    10



    0
    1. > The problem with Brodie’s argument is that if there was no Jesus at all and the whole narrative is made up of these OT elements, it’s very odd that Jesus doesn’t fit Messianic expectations better.

      I think Jesus was most likely historical for various reasons.

      Having said that, was it even possible to invent Messiah that would actually fit Messianic expectations? The whole point of Messiah is that he would trigger the apocalypse. Since you cannot trigger the apocalypse any invented Messiah would by necessity deviate from expected one. You had to invent some mechanism to delay the apocalypse and “he actually came as a sacrifice” would work as well as anything.

      What would be your response to that?




      0



      0
      1. “The whole point of Messiah is that he would trigger the apocalypse. “

        There were various ideas about what the Messiah (or Messiahs) were going to do, and that is just one of them. But yes, the whole idea of an invented Messiah is pretty far fetched.




        0



        0
  5. How do you know Tacitus wasn’t drunk when he was researching the Jesus case? Do you have the recordings of his interviews with either Josephus or Berenice? How could they know anything anyways this alleged Jesus existed before they were even born and no one can ever 100% know what happened before they were born. Maybe they were putting Tacitus on or just being nice to him knowing he had already done some research on this alleged Jesus….

    Furthermore I am puzzled by why didn’t Tacitus ever once put of this alleged Jesus’ birth certificate or death certificate for his readers.

    Lastly how do we know this Tacitus ever existed at all. The earliest copy of his alleged writings are from around 850 AD, yet he allegedly wrote in the late first century. Very suspicious I must say, very suspicious indeed. I think in fact was some sort of secret church anagram lost to the ages and his entire “history” is a spurious construct in order to create “evidence” of this so called Jesus….

    So we don’t know if Tacitus even existed and if we didn’t we don’t have the records with these so called Josephus and Berenice who weren’t even born when this alleged Jesus was alive. We don’t know the motives of those two or the mental state of Tacitus . I am very troubled indeed by why didn’t Tacitus show his readership the birth certificate or death certificate of this so called Jesus.

    I see no evidence whatsoever from Tacitus for a historical Jesus and furthermore what we now know it makes far more sense from a myther perspective.

    David Fitzgerald, professional historian and myther

    On a serious side now. I would have been driven nuts dealing with mythers as long as you have, glad you posted this. Thanks




    13



    0
    1. The fact that it took me until I had read about half of your comment before it became clear I was dealing with a parody and not a genuine Mythicist comment speaks volumes about them. I have encountered Mythicists for whom the comment above would be too mild and well-considered, including those who seriously think that every single Christian writer prior to Eusebius didn’t exist and that the whole first three centuries of Christian history were invented wholesale by Eusebius and Constantine. I’ve long since ceased to be astounded at just how utterly bonkers Mythicism can get. Thanks for the laugh.




      12



      0
      1. No problem, glad I made you laugh.

        I was laughing as I wrote it but part of me was and is concerned that mythers might use it for an argument!!

        I have given up serious discussion with mythers. It is as tedious as arguing with creationists in particular the young earth variety. There are far better things to do with ones time then try to convince people who have zero interest in how history is actually done . Life is too short to be wasted on such stuff.




        4



        0
      2. You said in the article “Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports …Well is there any historical evidence that he used primary sources for his writings of this “Chritus”? What makes these sayings historical,if we do not know exactly who he got this information from?
        Simply because he said he didn’t use hearsay ,or rumor ,does not mean he actually vetted these people who gave this info! So who were these sources then ,if you say he referred to sources of testimony from people he trusted?
        I am not a mythicist of Jesus no more than I am of Apollonius of Tyana. Neither one has done anything for me or society. I just like historical accuracy ,and honesty..




        1



        2
        1. “Well is there any historical evidence that he used primary sources for his writings of this “Chritus””

          Direct evidence, no. We can only go on what we know about his care, scepticism and good judgement and the fact that we know he was careful about checking his information.

          “What makes these sayings historical,if we do not know exactly who he got this information from?”

          If we rejected all ancient sources where we don’t exactly where they got their information from, we’d have to throw away about 99% of our sources and abandon the study of ancient history altogether. That’s not exactly reasonable. What historians actually do is accept that an ancient writer most likely did have a solid source for their information unless we have reason to suspect they did not. Raising the bar so high that this reference has to be rejected because Tacitus didn’t give us a footnoted citation is pretty silly and would require us to reject most of our ancient sources.




          5



          1
          1. A typically bad bit of clickbait. The headline reads “A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus”, though by the time we get into the article this becomes “historians and bloggers alike”. When the article finally gets around to mentioning any names we find Ehrman and Aslan (who don’t question the historical existence of Jesus), Fitzgerald and Atwill (who are neither historians nor scholars) and, of course, the lone but inevitable Richard Carrier.

            The article is full of statements which are plain stupid, such as:

            “Some even question whether or not Jesus was born on December 25. The Orthodox Church for example celebrates Christmas on January seventh, as according to the Julian calendar which predates the Gregorian, a date they claim is more accurate.”

            This shows the writer doesn’t have the faintest clue about the date of Christmas. Then there is this gem:

            “Historians have measures in terms of a burden of proof. If an author for instance is writing about a subject more than 100 years after it occurred, it isn’t considered valid.”

            Really? Well I suppose we should throw out Arrian’s accounts of the campaigns of Alexander and about half of Tacitus then.

            The author seems to think that the fact we don’t have much information about Jesus’ childhood years (standard in ancient biographies) or the fact that the gospels are contradictory (standard in pretty much any comparison of ancient sources on the same subject) somehow means Jesus didn’t exist, though he never explains how this follows. Then he tells us that “St. Paul is the only one to write about events chronologically”, though I suspect that simply means the writer doesn’t actually understand what the word “chronologically” means. Of course, he follows this up with the tired Mythicist claim that “Paul’s Epistles rest on the ‘Heavenly Jesus,” but never mention the living man”, which is simply wrong.

            The references to the relevant Josephus and Tacitus passages are garbled and seem to imply that all three of these references can be said to have been “altered over time by Christian scribes”, when that can only be said about one of them.

            He finishes with this prfound flourish:

            “Most antiquarians believe a real man existed and became mythicized. But the historical record itself is thin.”

            Which shows that “antiquarians” is another word this idiot needs to look up in a dictionary. In fact, the whole thing reads like a low grade essay by an overexcited seventeen year old who needs to learn what a dictionary is. And to get a clue generally.




            0



            0
          2. My sentiments exactly. There’s a bunch of Jesus entries on a site (by yet another pissed of anti-christian who is “unsympathetic to the idea” that Jesus ever lived) called usbible.com. Stuff about astrology and sun god connection you might care to check out and debunk




            0



            0
          3. I never said that we should reject Tacitus reference to “Chritus”. I only asked how do you ,and most historians interpret the historical method on ancient history. Yes ,you are correct. 99% of ancient history would be discarded if we actually followed the historical method. I think a lot of what we think we know should be discarded. But to accept this reference just because we have faith in Tacitus is fallen short as well.
            I think he could have been a real historical person ,but I think it’s still up for debate as well. It’s not an absolute.




            0



            0
          4. “Yes ,you are correct. 99% of ancient history would be discarded if we actually followed the historical method.”

            That is not what I said and that is also not correct. The historical method does not require us to disregard anything where we don’t know precisely where the writer got their iniformation. What I actually said was that this would be absolutely absurd and would make the study of ancient history impossible. What we actually do is assess if there is some reason to suspect their source was not reliable. And in the case of Tacitus we have good reasons not to do so. See my recent article on the Tacitus reference where I go over this in detail.

            “But to accept this reference just because we have faith in Tacitus is fallen short as well.”

            No-one is accepting this out of any “faith in Tacitus”. It is accepted out of a reason-based analysis of what Tacitus is likely to have known. See my article linked to above.

            “I think he could have been a real historical person ,but I think it’s still up for debate as well. It’s not an absolute.”

            Nothing in historical is “an absolute”. But it’s precisely because pretty much everything is potentially “up for debate” that historians make judgement calls on what is most likely to have happened. It is most likely that a historical Jesus existed and the Tacitus reference is just one piece of evidence that shows why this is most likely.




            0



            0
          5. Exactly what ” reason base analyses” are you referring too? I have read one of your articles concerning Tacitus. By the small reference concerning Nero ,and the Christians , do you take that as evidence of a historical Jesus alone ,or are there other elements besides the NT ,and Josephus? What is this evidence exactly?




            0



            0
          6. “Exactly what ” reason base analyses” are you referring too?”

            As I detail in the Tacitus article, we can be relatively confident that Tacitus had good sources of information because (i) when we can check what he says with other sources on other matters, he proves to be reliable, (ii) he was openly and explicitly sceptical about histories that simply reported rumour, (iii) when he did report rumour, he tended to indicate this in his text (e.g. “it is said”, or “by the common report” etc.), (iv) we know he had access to and often used documentary sources, including official records and (v) we know he had access to Jewish aristocratic exiles who would be a good source of information about a Jewish sect that had its origins in Judea.

            “By the small reference concerning Nero ,and the Christians , do you take that as evidence of a historical Jesus alone ,or are there other elements besides the NT ,and Josephus?”

            No. As I just said to you, it’s one piece of evidence that points in that direction.

            “What is this evidence exactly?”

            You are making comments on an article that summarises what this evidence is. Read the article.




            0



            0
          7. One more thing. Why do you consider Richard Carrier as pseudo? Lol
            Would like to hear your take brother! I am no historian. But I do love academic honesty. I have degrees in both theology ,and philosophy.I think Carrier is an expert in the field. I hope his bias is not that bad. I am also an avowed atheist ,and skeptic who still loves fairness on both sides.




            0



            0
          8. I consider Carrier a pseudo scholar because his bias IS that bad. He repeatedly champions fringe ideas, peddles ludicrously contrived and unconvincing theories and makes patent errors of interpretation purely because of his weird biases against religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that he had a PhD does not make him “an expert in the field”, it just makes him someone who is qualified to be an expert. It’s what you do after that first step that decides whether you are an expert in the field and all Carrier has done is prove himself a failure.




            1



            0
  6. From the point of view of the Gospel writers, Jesus was a figure of recent history – if he existed. If he didn’t exist, then we have a unique case of inventing recent history. There is no other case in the ancient world where four fake biographies were written about someone who “lived” less than a hundred years earlier. This looks more like a very big hoax than a myth.

    Now we consider Paul’s letters. Since we are dealing with a hoax, the natural assumption must be that Paul’s letters are part of the hoax. This would make the hoax even bigger, but it is already pretty big.

    Curiously, most mythicists are unwilling to dismiss all of Paul’s letters as fake. This is where the myth theory really collapses. The mythicist has already pushed credulity to the limit by assuming that we are dealing with a unique case of historical fraud in respect of the Gospels. If the mythicist must now invoke a separate theory to explain Paul’s letters, the argument is lost.

    The question is not just whether a mythicist explanation of Paul’s letters is plausible, but whether the cost of needing a separate explanation can actually be borne. The mythicist already has a potential explanation for Paul’s letters: they are part of the same hoax that produced the Gospels. If the hoax theory cannot also explain the letters and another theory is needed, then we should be very suspicious indeed.




    10



    0
  7. Oh come on EVERYONE knows that there is more evidence for Apollonius of Tyana than this mysterious “jesus” character!1




    3



    3
  8. Thanks again Tim.

    Just as an aside, if we allow that Luke was mistaken about which census occurred about the time of Jesus’s birth, i.e. that he misidentified an earlier census for one under Quirinius (he was writing 60 years later, it could happen), then the time frames of the nativity accounts can be lined up.

    Then it’s just a matter of placing each event the gospel writers record in sequence, remembering that neither gives an exhaustive list.

    Some sort of census is commanded under Augustus. In Israel at least, Jews go to their ancestral home in order to be counted, so Joseph takes his wife to Bethlehem. Some time later she gives birth in the downstairs “family” room, where they also keep the animals, of the house they’re staying at because the upstairs “guest-chamber” (Luke uses katalymati in 2:7, which some versions translate “inn”, and katalyma in 22:11 for the room where Jesus held his last supper, which is translated “guest-chamber”) was full. They then, as Luke records, fulfill the normal commands for ransoming a firstborn son in the Temple. Some time after that, while they’re still in Bethlehem, or have returned to visit family, the magi visit occurs, with the resulting threat to Jesus’s life and the flight to Egypt. That other accounts don’t record Herod’s order to kill boys two years and younger could be a problem except, as you note, much of history isn’t recorded, and from what we know of Herod, the killing of a handful of children in a small village was far from the worst, or most notable, thing he’d done.

    I’m also inclined, especially with Matthew, to say that the gospel writers’ use of the Old Testament was somewhat midrashic in a lot of cases. They’d record an event from Jesus’s life, then find an Old Testament passage to highlight it. I won’t rule out the possibility of some predictive prophecy, but I think they were more often looking for pattern rather than prediction.

    Anyways, my two cents worth.




    0



    0
    1. Just as an aside, if we allow that Luke was mistaken about which census occurred about the time of Jesus’s birth, i.e. that he misidentified an earlier census for one under Quirinius (he was writing 60 years later, it could happen), then the time frames of the nativity accounts can be lined up.

      No, that doesn’t actually work. This would require Quirnius to somehow be administering a census or some other “enrollment” during the lifetime of Herod the Great – something no Roman legatus ever did in the territory of a client kingdom. It would also require Quirinius – a patrician of consular rank – to be working as some kind of delegated subordinate of a fellow consular patrician, since he would be doing this during the Syrian governorship of either Publius Quinctilius Varus or Gaius Sentius Saturninus. This did not happen either. The Syrian governor would delegate a lower ranked subordinate, just as Quirinius delegated the equestrian Coponius to rule Judea when he took control of that territory in 6 AD. Apologist attempts at reconciling the gMatt and gLuke accounts always fail because of details like this.

      Some sort of census is commanded under Augustus

      No such census of non-Romans was ordered by Augustus that would have affected Jews in client kingdoms.

      In Israel at least, Jews go to their ancestral home in order to be counted

      This would make no sense for any tax census or for any other kind of enrollment. The Egyptian papyrus that apologists claim supports this idea says nothing about people travelling to the home of some distant ancestor of centuries before and simply says people who may be away from their homes during that census should be sure to avoid travel.

      The rest of your attempted reconciliation of the accounts is about as inventive as most such attempts and still unsustainable for the reasons given above.




      0



      0
      1. Well I must ask Tim ,because i always bring this historical discrepancy up in my debates. But Apologetics always seem to come with some irreconcilable angle. Is there any way to shut this cognitive dissonance all the way down on this subject in the N.T. at least?




        1



        0
        1. I’ve debated fundamentalist Christians and other conservative apologists on this point many times over the years. They are nothing if not inventive and ingenious in their efforts to get gMatt to agree with gLuke on the infancy narratives. I’ve seen them do everything from shifting the death of Herod into the ADs to inventing an earlier governorship for Quirinius, neither of which make any sense historically. But while their many inventive contrivances are all riddled with historical problems, the one fact that they all fall apart on is this: the Romans didn’t administer client kingdoms. That was actually the whole point of having client kings: they did the work for you and you just skimmed off a substantial cut of the taxes they collected. So the whole idea of Quirinius, in any capacity, administering a census in Herod’s kingdom is absurd and is contrary to all evidence of how these things worked. This is why Luke 2:1-2 makes it clear that the census of Quirinius was “the first”; i.e. the first because it was the first one taken when the Romans assumed direct administration of Judea in 6 AD. It’s also why this census sparked a revolt, since it was the first time the Old Testament injunction against “numbering the children of Israel” had been broken by a foreign power. It makes no sense that Quirinius would have been administering some earlier census and it makes no sense that the 6 AD census would spark a revolt if there had been one just a few years earlier. So however you cut it, the GLuke story is set in 6 AD and the gMatt one is set before the death of Herod in 4 BC. These two stories simply can’t be reconciled.




          1



          0
          1. I’d say we don’t and can’t know. Nothing much in the infancy narratives can be trusted as historical apart from the fact his family were from Nazareth and he grew up there. His followers probably only had a vague idea of roughly when he was born and it could well be that Jesus himself didn’t really know. In many pre-modern cultures people tended not to pay much attention to such things, probably because of the high infant and child mortality rates. As late as 1389 the poet Geoffrey Chaucer gave testimony in a court case and when asked his age replied “about 40” – he wasn’t sure. Even today one of the problems associated with child soldiers in Africa is often they have no idea exactly how old they are or how old they were when forced into the army or some militia. So we actually have no clear idea of when he was born and no reliable way of working it out.




            0



            0
  9. Hey Tim. You should’ve also mentioned the Last Supper in Paul’s epistles clearly showing an earthly Jesus. Just look what Paul says:

    1 Corinthians 11:23-26: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

    Paul literally narrates the events of the night of the last supper the disciples had with Jesus, and mentions things such as Jesus literally breaking bread and whatnot, and outright quotes the very words Jesus told His disciples during this supper. This busts mythicism again (disregarding the fact that mythicism is already debunked). Just wanted to mention this.




    6



    0
    1. I haven’t read Carrier’s book, but I take it his explanation of this is that Paul thinks this last supper happened in the celestial sphere?




      0



      0
        1. So basically this “celestial realm” which seems only known to them was populated with people with mundane names, they had mothers, brothers, had to eat, worried about marriage and died. Have these clowns ever heard of Occam’s razor. How is this idea remotely simpler than a human being who lived in Judea, who had a mother, a brother, ate food and was crucified which is exactly what the ancient sources report. How is this crap remotely rational?




          4



          0
          1. It requires a special kind of genius to ignore the most obvious reasdings of the evidence and concoct wildly contorted alternatives that assume the Mythicist thesis. It seems only people like Carrier and Price are capable of this special thinking, which is why they are pretty much the only ones who accept these amazing alterantive readings.




            4



            1
          2. I have been an atheist for almost two decades now. I used to be a baptist but when I was twenty I read some good critiques of Christianity and decided Christianity was simply false. I still believed in god for awhile but more and more I came to realize the notion of any sort of theistic god simply made no sense in light of the fact no one can point out one thing this god has clearly done and no one can agree on what it wants people to do anyways. ( maybe just maybe it wants people to act like mature responsible ethical adults and quit whining to it all the damn time. I know that is what I would want if I was a deity. Hey if mormonism is true it is just a trip to a temple in Salt Lake City Utah and becoming a deity is assured. ) Perhaps there is some sort of god out there but the one that acts like the proponents of major religion claims sure as heck seems absent to me. ( I would be too in fairness, look the followers these deity seems to attact) I should note this kinda kills the myther claim that people simply cannot consider mytherism because it is too radical of an idea after all it seems to the former baptist in me that rejecting the idea of god is a bit more radical that rejecting the idea a human lived.

            Back to mytherism though. It has always struck me as very implausible after all religious movements tend to have founders. For example Mohammed founded Islam, Joseph Smith founded Mormonism, David Koresh was a founder of the Branch Davidians, Martin Luther founded Lutheranism etc you get my point. The John Frum type movements are the very rare exception to this trend. Some mythers have pointed out to me we don’t know who founded Hinduism or ancient Paganism but this is probably just a product of lack of historical knowledge, not the fact these movements had no founders.

            So it makes perfect sense to say Christianity had a founder and all the ancient sources agree this founder was more or less a man named Yeshua ben Joseph who was claimed by his followers to be the Messiah. Big yawn the Branch Davidians claimed David Koresh was the Messiah, some still do despite his abject failures and his sex with children. People can be irrational that way.

            It just seems very hard to look at the writings of Paul and conclude Paul thought Jesus was some of celestial being. Odd celestial with a common name( why can’t he have a real awesome name like Gabriel and not the ancient equivalent to Bob), a mother ( and clearly a father to so is celestial sex simply divine ), a brother ( do they sibling rivalries in the celestial realms), that taught about such celestial things as marriage ( do you wonder if they only have two genders in these realms and how does gay marriage work there. What is the divorce rate?) and the end times ( really after we die we have to worry about the apocalypse in the hereafter!!), ate with his followers ( so in this celestial realm the celestial beings cook bread now. Do their restaurants use yelp?) was crucified ( did they use celestial wood and nails and if you are crucified there does it really even hurt… Can you get celestial ointment for that?) and these celestial beings die ( do their celestial spirits go to yet another celestial realm) and are buried ( so they had celestial shovels and celestial grave diggers) . Damn truly this is heaven on Earth if you take the mythers seriously !! Or in this case Paul was simply talking about events that happened on Earth which is what rational people conclude . So of course if this stuff was Earthly then it wrecks mytherism along with all the reasons you have listed for mytherism being a bunch of garbage.

            I could go on and on but I just view mytherism as the creationism of a bunch of pissed off anti Christians who just want to do the equivalent of throw everything including the kitchen sink at Christians. It really is a joke if you actually study the arguments of the movement though. Oh well it is fun




            2



            0
          3. @Kris: I’ve read Carrier’s book on mythicism. The answer in a nutshell is that he lists multiple things that he believes to be more likely under mythicism (I can get the list together if you’re interested) and, once he’s finished multiplying together all the ‘and this thing here is X times more likely to be what we’d see if Jesus was mythicism than if he was a historical figure’ estimates that he comes up with, it comes out with Jesus-as-myth being vastly more likely than Jesus-as-history.

            (The massive flaw in this, of course, is that he doesn’t input any of the probabilities from things like the Josephus mention, or Paul’s mention of ‘James, the brother of the Lord’, or any of the other details that would be more likely to occur with a historical Jesus than with a mythical Jesus. He comes up with alternative Jesus-myth explanations for all of these points, but never (from what I’ve seen) figures in how they might affect the probability. So that’s a huge flaw in his probability calculations.)

            I’d actually be really interested to see Tim or someone else who knows the history of this time period discuss some of Carrier’s other points, such as his claim that Clement’s letter to the churches never quotes from Jesus’s sayings and this seems strange if Jesus actually existed. In any case, this post has had some very helpful information about the Josephus passages, for which my thanks to Tim.




            3



            2
          4. Thanks for your comment Sarah. I’m guessing that Carrier leaves out the Josephan material and the Pauline reference to Jesus’ brother James because he’s arrived at the conclusion that these elements are not actually referring to Jesus (Ant. XX.200), are later interpolation (Ant. XVIII.63-64) or are speaking figuratively (Galatians 1:19). Unfortunately his arguments for these positions are dubious, contrived and – in the cases of the ones about Ant. XX.200 and Galatians 1:19 at least – clearly flawed.

            It’s been a while since I read Carrier’s clunky opus so I don’t recall his argument about Clement (1Clement or 2Clement or both?). I can look it up in the library today, so do you have some page references? My understanding was that Earl Doherty seemed to think both of the Clement epistles dated to when the historical Jesus idea predominated and were written by people who believed in a historical Jesus. This means their lack of details about him is more of a problem for Mythicism because it undercuts the Mythicist argument about the relative lack of such references in the Pauline epistles.




            4



            0
          5. Basically Carrier comes up with a view, tries to torture the evidence to fit it and the evidence that does not fit it he declares to be an interpolation. He then sprinkles some mathematics over this to give it a nice shinny gloss that will convince no professional historians; but will make his gullible readership go wild with excitement. No wonder he is unemployed.




            5



            0
          6. Pretty much Kris. His fanboys have conniptions when I refer to Carrier as a pseudo historian, reminding me (yet again) that he has a PhD. Dr Gerry Bouw also has a PhD, in astronomy in his case, but that doesn’t stop his whacko geocentric claims any less pseudo scientific.




            6



            0
          7. Don’t forget that Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells both had PhDs in biology, so I guess that means intelligent design must be correct. And don’t forget PhD William Dembski’s mathematical proof that ID is correct.




            0



            0
          8. When people start invoking Carrier’s doctorate I’ve given up trying to explain to them that unemployed history PhD graduates are a dime a dozen. So I note that Dr Gerry Bouw also has a PhD (in astronomy) and ask them whether that suddenly gives his geocentric theories credibility. Pseudo scholars are not defined by their qualifications but by the nature of their scholarship.




            0



            0
          9. Dr Richard Carrier is a brave freethinking rationalist whose ideas are being unfairly marginalized by a stagnant body of “historians” who have given into pressure from the shadowy forces of the Christian Right who seek to hide all facts which would undermine their religion.

            I too was the victim of a narrow minded academia who did not appreciate my brilliant views.

            My books too were a tour de force and were ridiculed by lesser minds.

            Please consider

            Dr Immanuel Velikovsky




            0



            0
    1. I’ve read the first volume (of three!) and won’t be bothering with the others. It’s as bad as Nailed and more evidence that when Fitzgerald isn’t just parroting his “hero and mentor” Carrier he’s totally out of his depth.




      0



      0
  10. I can understand being mistaken, people make mistakes. But there is no way Carrier doesn’t know better. He is trained in history. Any undergrad in history would know better than all this. Why continue making a known error?

    I get it having a PH.D in History without getting a teaching job can make things rough but not impossible in the job market. He could have become a librarian. When he was younger he served in the Coast Guard if I do recall, why not get back in and do OCS? He had options and a supportive wife. Why did he choose the path of the pseudo historian and throw it all away?




    5



    0
    1. Ego. He’s convinced that he’s a great genius and that it’s important that he continues to peddle his multiple contrarian theories to the world. And Richard Carrier the library assistant wouldn’t get the regular injections of fawning adulation that Richard Carrier the itinerant “independent scholar” gets giving lectures to small atheist groups around the US, even if it means a life of relative poverty and regular couch-surfing.




      5



      0
      1. I have always wondered when the poverty will get to him and he becomes a Christian Apologist. He could have the many new fans, a paycheck, a roof over his head and all the ink and paper he needs to promote his new views etc. He would have to give up the orgies though.




        2



        0
  11. Carrier’s approach is completely flawed. He begins by assigning Jesus to what is supposed to be an appropriate reference class – namely, the Rank-Raglan class. Jesus’ membership of this class is then used to calculate the prior probability that he existed, which turns out to be low.

    There are two problems with this. Firstly, as Johann Ronnblom has shown – http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/ – Jesus isn’t actually a Rank-Raglan hero. The second problem can be illustrated by an analogy:

    Obama belongs to a reference class whose other members have all been white. Hence, there is a high prior probability that Obama is white. Therefore there is a high prior probability that Obama really is white and there has been a conspiracy to cover this fact up.

    This is nonsense, of course. Any kind of conspiracy or massive hoax that fools everyone will always be the least likely explanation of the facts. And, as I pointed out above, the myth theory requires a hoax.




    7



    0
  12. 1 Corinthians 2:8: None of the rulers of this age knew this wisdom, because if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

    This verse settles the issue on whether Paul was speaking of a celestial Jesus or not. Jesus was executed by earthly authorities by means of crucifixion, a common way of authorities executing supposed criminals.

    Something that is just bewildering I’ve seen is that mythicists try to claim that the Greek word for ‘rulers’ in this passage (ἀρχόντων / archón) is actually used in the New Testament to mean ‘spiritual powers’ or something. However, every single use of archontōn in the entire New Testament, with the sole exception of Ephesians 2, refers to earthly rulers. The most comparable use of archón in the New Testament is another passage in Paul’s own authentic letters, Romans 13:3. I’ll quote the full context to this verse.

    Romans 13:1-7: Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers (archón) are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience. And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s servants, continually attending to these tasks. Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

    Paul uses the Greek term archón the exact same way in both Romans 13:3 as he does in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Every other New Testament passage where the Greek term archón appears also has it applying to physical, earthly rulers (Matthew 9:18, Luke 23:35, John 12:31, Acts 4:8, Acts 13:27, etc), and the entire exception to this is… A verse specifically talking about Satan in the Book of Ephesians, a book that mythicists don’t think Paul wrote anyways. Spectacular.

    Mythicists are a group of people who really just can’t believe that historians don’t take them seriously.




    3



    0
    1. A remarkable number of Mythicist arguments require a very “special” methodology when reading relevant texts:
      (i) Ignore the most obvious face-value meaning given the context
      (ii) Find a way that the text can be read so that the “celestial Jesus” contivance can be somehow maintained
      (iii) Insist that this must be the correct reading and that all context from later gospel material must be ignored.
      This weird heuristic is applied almost consistently to the Pauline material.

      The main problem (of many) with this approach is that it is all predicated on this idea that there was a “celestial Jesus” form of mythic urChristianity – something Mythicists strive and fail to actually demonstrate. Whereas the mainstream readings are based on something that is well-established and not a hypothetical propped up with weak arguments and hand waving: the later traditions of a historical human Jesus which give every indication of dating back to at least the time Paul wrote. So Occam’s Razor alone slices up the Mythicist readings.




      4



      0
  13. This could use a good rebuttal
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2kGJk4Jo4 Him trying to weasel his way out of comparing Yeshua’s supposed nonexistence with that of Hannibal, Socrates, Pythagoras, Sun Tzu, Buddha, etc. was just pathetic (there’s also Qin Shi Huang, Catherine of Alexandria, Muhammad, Ragnar the Viking. If one puts the same amount of effort into disproving them, one would come to the same conclusion)




    0



    0
    1. Judging from the trailer, the premise (such as it is) seems to be that because Jesus is depicted in the gospels as having “superpowers” we should read them as fiction, much like a modern superhero comic book. I’m guessing they are also trying to argue they were meant as fiction even though they never say this, much as comic books are understood to be fiction despite never explicitly saying they should be. This may seem superficially reasonable, but it’s actually naively imposing a modern genre category on ancient texts for polemical purposes. The problem with it is that we have many depictions of other people in the ancient world who have “super powers”, but we know those people are historical. Augustus has a miraculous conception at the hands of a god. Caesar ascends into heaven after his violent death. Vespasian heals the blind and the lame. Does this mean we should read accounts of these people as “fiction” and assume they didn’t exist? Obviously not. So the analogy between the way people were depicted in the ancient world and modern comic books really doesn’t work. The fact that Jesus is depicted as having miraculous powers does not necessarily make him a “fictional” character, because at least some of the people depicted that way in the ancient world were clearly historical.

      I also recently responded to a Mythicist who claimed that if we take all the miraculous elements out of the Jesus stories “there’s nothing left”. He seemed to think this meant the idea of a kernel of historical elements minus the miraculous accretions was therefore unsustainable. Out of interest, I then summarised the whole gospel of Mark for him chapter by chapter, removing all the miraculous elements. Far from there being “nothing left” when I did this, it was interesting how little I had to take out. The core of story consists of “Jesus went here and said this” or “Jesus went there and disputed with some other people”. I’d argue we could leave in the faith healings and the exorcisms, since they are things we see in many traditional societies today and can even see in any revivalist or Pentecostal church any Sunday – there’s no actual miracles happening there, just group psychology. Which means all you have to take out are the big miracles: the feeding of the five thousand, walking on water, the Transfiguration and that’s about it. We don’t even have to remove any stories about a risen Jesus, because gMark doesn’t depict that, it just implies it. Far from being left with “nothing”, when we take out the “Jesus as superhero” stories, we’re left with a historically plausible story of a Galilean peasant in a very small world of other Galilean peasants, preaching a Jewish message of a coming apocalypse using mainly peasant imagery (farming, fishing, herding) to some other peasants.

      Anyway, the rest of the trailer is amusing in a juvenile and silly way and I imagine the whole “Batman” premise will appeal to Mythicists because a hell of a lot of them are … well, pretty geeky. And we have the usual grab bag of fringe scholars (Price and Carrier) and total nobodies (Fitzgerald, “Aron Ra”), along with that esteemed history expert, Killah Priest from Wu Tang! All in all it looks like yet another nerdy circle jerk by the usual suspects.




      7



      0
      1. Thanks for the reply, I think comparing to “Batman” of all DC figures is the stupidest decision considering well… he doesn’t even have any powers at all (other then being rich). Maybe superman would’ve been perfect because we see his imagery as being similar to Jesus in comic and film (Came from out of this world, born with super powers, saves the world multiple times, has Jesus imagery in the man of steel film and also sacrifice himself and resurrected in some comics!).

        Plus you could’ve saved your time removing the miracles from the Gospel of Mark, and just shown him the Jefferson Bible, literally the gospels without anything divine or miraculous about them.

        anyway, when the film comes out, would you have any interest in reviewing the film or just ignore it and move on from it if its not really that interesting?




        1



        0
        1. True, Batman is a very odd choice. As you say, Superman fits better. Maybe the film will explain why they went with a rather unsuper superhero.

          I may review the movie. As far as I can tell, it’s the first attempt at something like this since the rather feeble The God Who Wasn’t There back in 2005.




          4



          0
    2. I’ve seen that argument in many different forms. What mythicists ignore is the fact that historians look at evidence both for and against a particular argument. We have positive evidence that Batman/Superman/Spiderman/Harry Potter are fiction. We know who wrote them and when. We know they wrote them as fiction. We have copies of the original publications. We have none of that for Jesus (or any one in antiquity), so comparing Jesus to any of them is simply absurd.




      4



      0
  14. It started off good (interesting bit about Hannibal not having contemporaries and Philo not mentioning other people) but then you said this: “the Antiquities XX.200 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine by Josephus scholars and that alone sinks the Mythicist case (see below for more details).” You should have first established Josephus’ credibility beforehand.

    Also, Tacitus was writing about another Jewish sect, not Christianity. Consult Suetonius, Pilate Stone (which demonstrates that Pilate would have been called prefect, not procurator), and Josephus. It should be obvious that there has been a systematic attempt to place Christianity within 1st-2nd century (see interpolations in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Aurelius, etc.) to compensate for the lack of contemporary witnesses and to prop up the so-called myth. Interpolation in Pliny’s letter: “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god…” In Julian’s essay, he notes that none of the founders of Christianity had called Jesus god.

    If Jesus existed, he wouldn’t have gathered crowds and he wouldn’t have been sent only to Jews. Galilee had a mixed population, the Jews there were distinct from the wealthier ones in Alexandria. Jesus’ loftier teachings would have been given to initiates, they were not meant for everyone. He would have been betraying his principle of not casting pearls. His viewers wouldn’t have been able to comprehend them. It would have brought his teachings into ridicule and destroyed his authority.

    It’s also absurd to think that he would have stormed into the temple and done all those things listed, as perpetuated by anti-Semites. He would have most certainly been arrested or killed on the spot. Just because it occurs in all four gospels doesn’t make it true. We must recall that the council had a massive selection of works to shift
    through. They would have picked the ones that were most consistent.




    0



    4
    1. “You should have first established Josephus’ credibility beforehand.

      Why? Do we have any reason to think he was lying about this? And when Jesus’ brother James was executed Josephus was 25 years old and living in Jerusalem. The city was relatively small – with an estimated population of about 80,000 people. I don’t know if you’ve ever lived in a small town, but in small urban centres like this if you don’t know someone personally, you know them by sight or you know of them, especially if they have an local prominence at all. And Josephus had a reason to at least know of James, because his execution caused the high priest Hanan ben Hanan to be deposed. Given that Josephus was from a priestly family himself, that was a political big deal. The idea that this information, made in a passing comment, is somehow unreliable is absurd. Speaking of which …

      “Also, Tacitus was writing about another Jewish sect, not Christianity.”

      Utter garbage. Another Jewish sect that, by an absolutely amazing co-incidence just happened to also be founded by a “Christus” (from the Greek, Χριστος, translating the Hebrew for “Messiah”) who also just happened to be executed by Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius? Don’t be ridiculous.

      “Pilate Stone (which demonstrates that Pilate would have been called prefect, not procurator”

      Except these titles weren’t used with any great precision and Tacitus often used anachronistic forms. “Procurator” was what the Roman governors of Judea were called in his time. And even arch-Mythicist Richard Carrier argues that Pilate can be regarded as both a Procurator and a Prefect anyway. I’ll deal witht he crappy Myther attempts at dismissing the Tacitus reference in an upcoming article.

      “It should be obvious that there has been a systematic attempt to place Christianity within 1st-2nd century (see interpolations in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Aurelius, etc.) to compensate for the lack of contemporary witnesses and to prop up the so-called myth.”

      Yet this amazing and apparently “obvious” conspiracy has somehow not been noted by thousands of scholars over several centuries of analysis. Luckily we have internet kooks to tell us what really happened. Lucky us. The rest of your silly comment is not even worth a response. Take your crackpot conspiracy theories elsewhere.




      10



      0
  15. I’ve read all of this, & the comments. So, do biblical scholars, actually, believe that a man made the blind see, healed the sick, & rose from the grave in two days?!! Even the the non-christian ones?




    0



    4
    1. Clearly it depends on who you ask. A Non-Christian biblical scholar would say ‘no’, because they presumably dont believe in the miraculous, at least about Jesus of Nazareth. If you asked a Christian biblical scholar, then most would say ‘yes’ (though some would say ‘no’).

      So Tim’s blanket reply of ‘no’ simply isnt true.




      0



      0
      1. My “blanket reply of ‘no'” is true, given that I was responding to a question that specified they were asking about non-Christian scholars. Obviously non-Christian scholars don’t believe he rose from the dead and don’t believe he really healed anyone, though he may have done some faith healing of psychosomatic or simply imaginary conditions, the way faith healers do.




        1



        0
        1. The question was ‘do biblical scholars believe… even the non-Christian ones?’ That wording would seem to imply the poster is effectively asking ‘do all biblical scholars…’. which is how I read it.

          I would clearly disagree with your view of healing, whether by Jesus then or today.




          0



          0
          1. Okay. To me, ‘do biblical scholars believe …. even the non-Christian ones?’ means do ALL scholars, including the non-Christian ones, believe this. The clear answer to that question is “no”. As I said. And your religious beliefs are of little to no interest to me, I can assure you.




            0



            0
  16. “The consensus of scholars, including non-Christian scholars, is that a historical Jesus most likely existed and the later stories about “Jesus Christ” were told about him”

    So was there a poll? How do you know what the “consensus” is.




    0



    1
    1. Why would we need a poll? You can count the number of actual scholars who support the idea no historical Jesus existed on the fingers of two hands, and that’s if we are very generous with the word “scholars”. If you think you can make a case that the consensus goes the other way, let’s see your evidence.




      4



      1
  17. “The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd”.

    Jews actually have an idea of suffering and dying Messiah, read Old Testament, book of Isaiah for example.




    0



    0
    1. If you have some historical evidence that the “Suffering Servant” passages in Deutero-Isaiah was interpreted as a Messianic prophecy by Jewish people before the rise of Christianity, then please produce it. Otherwise all you are saying is that these passages were given that interpretation by Christians. That’s a theological position – this blog is focused on history. So either produce some historical evidence for your claim or take your Christian eisegesis elsewhere.




      1



      0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *