Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

Is it just me, or do most of the mythicists' arguments boil down to saying "Nuh-uh!" in the face of historical scholarship?

Seems to be the case. I can't see any actual basis for their confidence though.

 

[abaddon]

Is it just me, or do most of the mythicists' arguments boil down to saying "Nuh-uh!" in the face of historical scholarship?

It's not just you.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

David - I’m surprised at you bringing up this argument here. You do realise that this is an argument frequently trotted out by Christian apologists in defence of a real Jesus? Do you really not realise why that argument is fallacious and the analogy between such people and Jesus is not valid?

OK, I have explained the reasons several times before in these threads, but briefly -

- if you are comparing the case of Jesus to that of any ancient philosophers or rulers of whom it was said they could perform miracles or that they had become Gods (as I believe some sycophantic courtiers said to their Roman emperors of the day), then first of all - none of those people were known primarily for their supernatural deeds. They were all known for, and became famous for, the perfectly ordinary human things they did throughout their lives. Roman emperors were known almost entirely for how they sent their troops into all sorts of battles, how they enacted various laws etc. with their courtiers and officials, how they married all sorts of people and had all sorts of children etc., all of whom are also traceable with normal human lives, etc. etc. And similarly in the case of various philosophers who were known for the philosophical theories they espoused.

But, like I say, the distinction between 'supernatural deeds' and 'perfectly ordinary human things' is a modern one. First-century Jews, the educated ones let alone the uneducated peasants, wouldn't have made this distinction, and neither would most people throughout history (or, perhaps, today). To a Josephus a Roman Emperor who won in battle by might be just as 'supernatural' as a peasant who performed miracles, while the miracle-worker might be manipulating 'natural' forces. Was recovery from illness 'natural' when people hadn't the first clue how the human body and disease worked? Or was it 'supernatural'?

Still on the battle thing, recall how the stories generally include sacrifices to the gods, divine intervention, and so on. Modern (post-eighteenth-century) scholars have made the Romans in their own image as rational sorts of chaps who were good at all that strategizing stuff, but in reality the Romans were deeply superstitious religious types who attributed everything from illness to gain or loss in battle to the favour or disfavour of the gods. The line between 'miracle' and 'everyday event' is drawn in an entirely different place in Antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

It is also the case that people like Pythagoras were indeed mostly thought of as miraculous men with special insight into religion and the afterlife etc...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

...
Pythagoras wrote nothing, nor were there any detailed accounts of his thought written by contemporaries. By the first centuries BCE, moreover, it became fashionable to present Pythagoras in a largely unhistorical fashion as a semi-divine figure, who originated all that was true in the Greek philosophical tradition, including many of Plato's and Aristotle's mature ideas. A number of treatises were forged in the name of Pythagoras and other Pythagoreans in order to support this view.

The Pythagorean question, then, is how to get behind this false glorification of Pythagoras in order to determine what the historical Pythagoras actually thought and did. In order to obtain an accurate appreciation of Pythagoras' achievement, it is important to rely on the earliest evidence before the distortions of the later tradition arose. The popular modern image of Pythagoras is that of a master mathematician and scientist. The early evidence shows, however, that, while Pythagoras was famous in his own day and even 150 years later in the time of Plato and Aristotle, it was not mathematics or science upon which his fame rested. Pythagoras was famous (1) as an expert on the fate of the soul after death, who thought that the soul was immortal and went through a series of reincarnations; (2) as an expert on religious ritual; (3) as a wonder-worker who had a thigh of gold and who could be two places at the same time; (4) as the founder of a strict way of life that emphasized dietary restrictions, religious ritual and rigorous self discipline...

I wonder how many times I have to post this before someone reads it?

This is about the fifth time now.

 

[dejudge]

1. Historical records are never complete, and they get less so the further back you go. We wouldn't expect to have anything like full Roman administrative records for the important stuff they did, never mind for the minor peasantry, the class to which Jesus belonged.

You are so wrong--so uninformed.

We have not only writers of antiquity who mentioned minor peasantry but we have numerous mention of an assortment of characters called Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

There were suspected murderers, robbers, high priests even a mad man called Jesus.

A character called Jesus either attempted to or planned to kill Josephus.

Josephus also mentioned a mad man called Jesus son of Ananus who was brought before the procurator and beaten to a pulp for simply saying "Woe unto Jerusalem".

This is a partial list of characters called Jesus in Josephus.

Jesus son of Ananus.

Jesus son of Sapphias.

Jesus son of Sie.

Jesus son of Thebuthus.

Jesus son of Gamala.

Jesus son of Josadek.

Jesus son of Damneus.

2. ... I have no doubt that Paul really believed he had met the risen Christ, for instance.

Which Paul really believed that he had met the fiction character called the resurrected Jesus Christ?

Please, present the evidence that dispelled your doubts.

You just believe the Bible is true--that is all.

I have no reasonable doubt that there was no Risen character called Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

... You just believe the Bible is true--that is all.

dejudge, I find it very hard to accept that you really think that most atheists adopt the position that there was a historical but not supernatural Jesus, because most atheists "believe the Bible is true". I find it hard to suppose that anyone thinks most atheists are Bible believers. If this is really your opinion, it requires a stronger justification than you have sought to give it up to now.

 

[davefoc]

dejudge, I find it very hard to accept that you really think that most atheists adopt the position that there was a historical but not supernatural Jesus, because most atheists "believe the Bible is true". I find it hard to suppose that anyone thinks most atheists are Bible believers. If this is really your opinion, it requires a stronger justification than you have sought to give it up to now.

I think you are exactly right with regard to the people that participate in these threads. Although, I think the average atheist has a notion that Jesus was a real guy that founded Christianity and the NT stories might not be exactly correct, but when the miracles and the improbabilities are subtracted out there is still some truth that remains.

Even after I became interested in this topic seven or eight years ago I held on to the notion that some historical truth had managed to make its way into the Gospels, especially Mark.

However, my view today is that Mark is historical fiction and it isn't possible to extract any facts about the HJ from it reliably. I base this mostly on my own non-scholarly reaction to Gospel itself. It reads like fiction to me and every event is so tied up with fictional elements that it just isn't possible to know if there is any truth in it or not.

 

[zugzwang]

But, like I say, the distinction between 'supernatural deeds' and 'perfectly ordinary human things' is a modern one. First-century Jews, the educated ones let alone the uneducated peasants, wouldn't have made this distinction, and neither would most people throughout history (or, perhaps, today). To a Josephus a Roman Emperor who won in battle by might be just as 'supernatural' as a peasant who performed miracles, while the miracle-worker might be manipulating 'natural' forces. Was recovery from illness 'natural' when people hadn't the first clue how the human body and disease worked? Or was it 'supernatural'?

Still on the battle thing, recall how the stories generally include sacrifices to the gods, divine intervention, and so on. Modern (post-eighteenth-century) scholars have made the Romans in their own image as rational sorts of chaps who were good at all that strategizing stuff, but in reality the Romans were deeply superstitious religious types who attributed everything from illness to gain or loss in battle to the favour or disfavour of the gods. The line between 'miracle' and 'everyday event' is drawn in an entirely different place in Antiquity.

Yes, anachronism prowls like a roaring lion, ready to snaffle us up. Seeing a previous age through the lens of today leads to weird results often, or at any rate, inaccurate results. Probably, the supernatural lens operated up to the Renaissance, and beyond, and of course, in some parts of the world, up to today.

So the Jesus story strikes us as bizarre and fanciful today, but not then. You can't use the logic, it's supernatural, therefore fiction.

 

[davefoc]

Yes, anachronism prowls like a roaring lion, ready to snaffle us up. Seeing a previous age through the lens of today leads to weird results often, or at any rate, inaccurate results. Probably, the supernatural lens operated up to the Renaissance, and beyond, and of course, in some parts of the world, up to today.

So the Jesus story strikes us as bizarre and fanciful today, but not then. You can't use the logic, it's supernatural, therefore fiction.

I don't understand it, but the nature of the gospels resonated with a segment of the population. For me, even if you extract the supernatural you are still left with a collection of stories that sound like they are just made up. Implausibilities are intrinsic parts of the stories to such an extent that I don't think the gospels would have been believed by a skeptical segment of the population even when they were written. Other historical texts from the time might have their problems but they don't immediately strike me as just made up stuff. The gospels do.

Even if you accept that Paul was a real fellow who wrote some truth I think the religion that he played a role in starting remained a very small time affair until the author of Mark created an historical novel around bits of history, geography and perhaps a broad outline that came down to him about either a real HJ or a made up Jesus. I think the Jesus fiction that arose some time after the hypothetical time of Paul's writings probably played a key role in gaining enough followers for Christianity that the religion had the critical mass that allowed it to begin to grow.

 

[dejudge]

But, like I say, the distinction between 'supernatural deeds' and 'perfectly ordinary human things' is a modern one. First-century Jews, the educated ones let alone the uneducated peasants, wouldn't have made this distinction, and neither would most people throughout history (or, perhaps, today). To a Josephus a Roman Emperor who won in battle by might be just as 'supernatural' as a peasant who performed miracles, while the miracle-worker might be manipulating 'natural' forces. Was recovery from illness 'natural' when people hadn't the first clue how the human body and disease worked? Or was it 'supernatural'?

What you say simply cannot be accepted. People of antiquity knew what was fiction and what was not especially when they were dealing with human beings.

If people could not differentiate between fact and fiction then there would be no accusations of lying or giving false information.

To show your claim is totally erroneous please read "A True Story" by Lucian .

Lucian's A True Story

Well, on reading all these authors, I did not find much fault with them for their lying, as I saw that this was already a common practice even among men who profess philosophy. 2 I did wonder, though, that they thought that they could write untruths and not get caught at it.

Therefore, as I myself, thanks to my vanity, was eager to hand something down to posterity, that I might not be the only one excluded from the privileges of poetic licence, and as I had nothing true to tell, not having had any adventures of significance, I took to lying.

But my lying is far more honest than theirs, for though I tell the truth in nothing else, I shall at least be truthful in saying that I am a liar.

I think I can escape the censure of the world by my own admission that I am not telling a word of truth. Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neither seen nor had to do with nor learned from others--which, in fact, do not exist at all and, in the nature of things, cannot exist.

Therefore my readers should on no account believe in them...

 

[dejudge]

....Even if you accept that Paul was a real fellow who wrote some truth I think the religion that he played a role in starting remained a very small time affair until the author of Mark created an historical novel around bits of history, geography and perhaps a broad outline that came down to him about either a real HJ or a made up Jesus. I think the Jesus fiction that arose some time after the hypothetical time of Paul's writings probably played a key role in gaining enough followers for Christianity that the religion had the critical mass that allowed it to begin to grow.

Paul could not be a real 1st century fellow. In fact, the Pauline Corpus may have written by at least SEVEN different authors under the name of Paul.

The claims in the Pauline Corpus about Jesus are so outrageously absurd that it is virtually impossible that there was a Jew, a Pharisee, who went all over the Roman Empire claiming that a dead and resurrected Jesus born of the seed of David was the Son of God, Lord and Savior and that every knee should bow to the name of Jesus.

When could a Jew and a Pharisee do such a thing in the Roman Empire?

There is NO history of a Roman citizen who worshiped a dead Jew as God the Creator since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated and does not belong in the 1st century.

The Paul/Seneca letters to place Paul in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries.

 

[davefoc]

[see [post above]

When do you think Christianity began?

 

[dejudge]

When do you think Christianity began?

The abundance of evidence from antiquity support the argument that the Jesus story and cult of Christians originated in the 2nd century at least after or around c 115 CE.

It is completely untenable that the Jesus story and cult was initiated by a known lie.

That is, if Jesus did exist and died around c 33 CE then the Pauline Corpus makes no sense.

It is wholly absurd that Roman Citizens would worship a DEAD Jew as God Creator whom they crucified.

Jesus supposedly died c 33 CE and by 37-41 CE Paul a Jew and Pharisee has elevated a DEAD Jew as God Creator!!!

The Pauline Corpus is not history. It is not credible.

Thousands of Jews were killed and crucified by the Romans and neither Jews nor Roman citizens worshiped those executed Jews as God.

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

Probably, the supernatural lens operated up to the Renaissance, and beyond, and of course, in some parts of the world, up to today.

Actually, I think the anachronism was to retroject a committed supernatural interpretation onto Mark, to the exclusion of the realistic reading which is plainly on offer in black letters.

Mark goes out of its way to provide naturalistic explanations of its most flashy miracles. If the reader wants to spin all of it supernaturally, then the author doesn't stop her, but if the reader wants to read it realistically, then the author provides all that is needed.

Tired men in poor light saw a ghost. Men marched uphill in the desert saw Moses and Elijah join Jesus in a bleach commercial with a voiceover at the end. People who brought food with them when trekking off to the middle of nowhere shared it with their neighbors who had less foresight.

Some of the retrojection of the supernatural, in my opinion, is derivative of the retrojection of author's purpose. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Mark was intended for recruiting new members to any cult. Where does "Mark" ever make this choice seem attractive? There's none of Paul's "You can fly and never die" stuff in Mark. On the contrary, Jesus' return is going to be a lousy day for everybody - Cthulhu anyone? Marcan Jesus isn't especially attractive or charismatic, either. There's nothing in it for the reader to ally with him, not even a quicker death.

Our colleague davefoc could be correct, that Mark is an early historical novel. It could instead have been a "proof of concept" that what Paul wrote might be reconciled with what the apostolic disciples taught. Its purpose might have been to influence the succession of leadership in the Gentile church after Paul died and created an opening at the top. It plainly exalts the three disciples Peter, James and John, as clearly as it exalts Jesus. And on and on.

So, the retrojective reasoning seems to be that because centuries after "Mark" died, Christian doctrine, dictated by the survivors of generations of internecine feuding, was a rat's nest of contradictory superstitious buttpullings, so then that's what Mark was really getting at.

Anachronism doesn't get any plainer than that.

 

[David Mo]

David
So to summarise all that - there are two reason why your analogy is wholly and completely wrong -

1. None of those philosophers or emperors etc were primarily known for their supernatural miraculous nature. They were entirely known for their non-supernatural acts. That is the total opposite of Jesus.

2. Some of those figures of ancient history may indeed have been imaginary, but nobody cares about them, so people can’t be bothered to argue about it - they are all quite irrelevant to 99.999% of people today. But again that is the absolute opposite of the case with Jesus - in the Jesus case, he has assumed such huge and direct importance for everyone today, that people most certainly can and do now take the trouble to check and point out that there is in fact no evidence of this claimed supernatural messiah.

(...) But if you do want an answer from me, then I will look at that in another reply. However, afaik there is no evidence for any crucifixion. Though, in contrast, there are clear references in the OT prophesising that the messiah will be persecuted and disowned by his own Jewish people, and perhaps even persecuted unto death (I have given the OT refs here several times before).

Thank you for summarizing. That makes quoting easier.

I consider point 2 irrelevant for our discussion. It concerns the reliability of modern exegesis. I am not exegete and you neither, I suppose. Let us focus on arguments if you like.

On point 1: You make a difference between historical narrative in Antiquity and religious or mythical narrative. I had done some remark also: I think the difference implies we must to be more sceptical with mythical accounts. But this does not imply that we have to reject a priori all mythical narrative as irrelevant for the historical studies. Some interesting remarks about archaic societies have been extracted from mythical poems. Yes, there is a difference between general features of a society and particular events. Evidence about particular events, both in historical and mythical accounts, is more unsecure. In general, we must weigh the points to favour and counter. And yes, the mythical nature of a text is a counter point. I agree with you in that. The gospel stories about how Jesus confused the Pharisees or charmed the crowd are highly suspected to be hagiographic invention. The same objection is valid for passages about fulfilment of the Old Testament and so on. But in some points of the narrative there is something that squeaks. These discordances reveal items that escape to the intentional construct and refer to data that are resistant to harmonization of theological outlook. These are the cases of the failure in prophecy about imminence of God Kingdom, observance of the Law or the death on the cross, for example. This latter case refers to a difficult subject for the early Christians that points to an event against which they have to fight and painstakingly deform. Obviously an indication is not evidence in strong sense, but also matters.

Yes. I'm interested in your opinion about this concrete point. Thanks.

 

[zugzwang]

I don't understand it, but the nature of the gospels resonated with a segment of the population. For me, even if you extract the supernatural you are still left with a collection of stories that sound like they are just made up. Implausibilities are intrinsic parts of the stories to such an extent that I don't think the gospels would have been believed by a skeptical segment of the population even when they were written. Other historical texts from the time might have their problems but they don't immediately strike me as just made up stuff. The gospels do.

Even if you accept that Paul was a real fellow who wrote some truth I think the religion that he played a role in starting remained a very small time affair until the author of Mark created an historical novel around bits of history, geography and perhaps a broad outline that came down to him about either a real HJ or a made up Jesus. I think the Jesus fiction that arose some time after the hypothetical time of Paul's writings probably played a key role in gaining enough followers for Christianity that the religion had the critical mass that allowed it to begin to grow.

Well, some scholars (e.g. Vermes) argue that against the background of charismatic Judaism, the Jesus story is not remarkable. Well, correct that, as it becomes Christianized, it becomes remarkable, but as a Jewish story, it is not, since contemporary Jews expected healings, exorcisms, prophetic teaching, from preachers.

Of course, it's difficult for me as an amateur to assess this. Do we argue that such scholars are wrong, and we can see how and why?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Why do physicists get upset when people who know nothing about math or physics turn up on here and explain their paradigm-shifting theories which show Einstein was wrong?

<Lots of good stuff snipped>

Yes, I get that, and barring the acknowledged quibble about degrees of confidence and knowledge, I agree. It's my fault for not being clearer - that question was intended to be directed at the mythicists, as they seem (here, anyway) to be particularly shouty about something they can't prove, which raises several questions which I haven't yet seen a good answer to, and which has no practical effect that I can see. Yet they hammer on, and scornfully dismiss even the vaguest notion that the seed of the stories may have been a genuine person, even if his life became so layered with myth and hagiography that we have no way of reliably knowing anything about him. I just can't see what it's meant to achieve.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

The claims in the Pauline Corpus about Jesus are so outrageously absurd...

The entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated and does not belong in the 1st century...

That is, if Jesus did exist and died around c 33 CE then the Pauline Corpus makes no sense...

The Pauline Corpus is not history. It is not credible...

The Pauline Corpus must be turning in its grave.

 

[eight bits]

Recovering Agnostic

I just can't see what it's meant to achieve.

One of the determined mythicists has been kind enough to share the dream that debunking Jesus would in the long run erode the power and prevalence of Christianity (and presumably of Islam). The fantasy moment is when some Jesus-professing leader(s) must admit that their hero probably wasn't a human being who actually lived.

Must admit? Or else what, Penn Jillette will lose all respect for them?

It is diffiult to prove a negative without establishing something specific which is incompatible with whatever is being denied. Mythological or intentionally fabricated origin is incompatible with real origin. It's hard to see what else could confidently be asserted that trumps a religious-minded guy running afoul of his brutal overlords and afterwards being sighted by his firends as a ghost (the same friends who thought they saw his ghost when he was still alive).

Not that I think that there will be a smoking gun for mythological or fabricated origin, even if it's true. But what else is even seriously possible as a realization of the fantasy? In the meantime, none of the stories has any more a priori appeal than a ghost story gone viral, and even less evidence backing it up.

And if you did come up with the evidence? Your target audience includes people who believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a flying horse, and negotiated with God how many times people should pray everyday. So, these people now pray five times a day, every day, because that was the deal Mo made. With God. While visiting heaven. Riding on a winged horse.

Yeah, knowing that Jesus was a myth is gonna make some big hole in these people's belief system.

 

[zugzwang]

eight bits

It's also an odd way to do history, with a pre-arranged agenda. I will study this period, with the intention of demonstrating that the Romans were absolute bastards, and I will leave no stone unturned in that pursuit.

I suppose Gibbon is sometimes accused of doing that, not about the Romans, but the Christians! Well, I don't think anybody thinks that that was Gibbon's primary purpose, and his work is still consulted for its research into primary sources, but with a cocked eye for his prejudices.