Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[The Norseman]

This thread might be a little different. There is one person participating in this thread that thinks it is at least very likely that an HJ existed and there is one person participating in this thread that is sure he didn't. Everybody else is deeply mired in uncertainty mitigated a bit on occasion with some weak support for their personal guess.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that they could provide proof for the existence of an HJ.

In just this thread or the three active threads going on right now? If the former, maybe you're right. If the latter, then no, I believe that's not true. Since you didn't name names though, we really can't verify what you said.

 

[zugzwang]

pakeha wrote:

zuzwang, what would you consider a positive argument for a MJ?

Interesting question. There seem to be at least 3 versions of MJ, and maybe more.

1. The Doherty type MJ, which is an explicitly celestial and non-human figure, who is originally the focus of Christian worship, and then gets turned into a human figure.

2. The idea that stories about Jesus spring up spontaneously, without any real person being involved.

3. The idea that the stories about Jesus are forged, by person or persons unknown, maybe in the 2nd century.

Well, the arguments for each one of these would vary. In relation to 1, I suppose it would be good to find some clues about an early Christian group, who did worship a celestial and non-human figure. I think Doherty argues that there is evidence for this, for example, when Paul talks about having died with Christ, he does not mean his actual death, but a kind of spiritual or allegorical death. This is ingenious, but I'm not convinced it shows that Paul had a full-on Platonic view of Christ, since Jewish rhetoric is full of allegories and metaphors, (for example, 'I am the vine, you are the branches'). However, this is a complicated area.

In relation to 2, I suppose in the main, you have to discredit HJ! You can also of course, show how derivative some of the elements in the Jesus story are - from the Jewish Bible for example (OT), and then argue that the whole thing is like this. Or you could argue that in an era where Jewish preachers seem to be ten a penny, that it is plausible that a stock figure should arise as a popular folk-lore type legend (not myth).

(3) seems a tough one to me. I've never seen arguments for wholesale forgery, except the fact that most Christian writings are known from late manuscripts, e.g. 11th century. But this is also true of Aristotle, isn't it?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Which "Paul" is that?

I'm not sure if I know where this is going, but I'll have a stab: the "Paul" who was attested by "Luke" to have been persecuter, then zealous convert, then preacher and apostle to the gentiles. The one whose authorship was claimed for most of the NT, and who was probably behind his Greatest Hits in epistle terms.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm not sure if I know where this is going, but I'll have a stab: the "Paul" who was attested by "Luke" to have been persecuter, then zealous convert, then preacher and apostle to the gentiles. The one whose authorship was claimed for most of the NT, and who was probably behind his Greatest Hits in epistle terms.

It's not intended as a set-up; just wanted to know because I read (read as in present tense) that there are many writings attributed to at least several different authors, none of which we can discover if they were really named Paul. That's why the scare quotes.

 

[IanS]

Nobody in this thread has suggested that they could provide proof for the existence of an HJ.

I think that's probably true in the literal sense that most people are not so silly or unguarded as to say Jesus has been proved true. But your statement (which has been said before by most pro HJ people here) is hiding a problem in what HJ people have said. Namely ...

... most of the HJ people in this thread and the other current and immediately preceding HJ threads, have cited as their main and repeated argument, that expert scholars all agree that Jesus did indeed exist.

But as I have pointed out at least 50 times - the most prominent of those expert "historians" who people are refereeing to when they say "expert scholars and historians", is Bart Ehrman. So just to be really clear what I am explaining about that - when pro-HJ people in these threads claim that a very powerful persuasive factor is that "expert historians" do agree that Jesus was real, although they do not wish to say so, the fact is that Bart Ehrman is precisely one of the so-called "expert historians" they are relying upon. In fact Ehrman is, as I say, by far the most prominent and most frequently cited of all such "expert historians".

So what does Ehrman actually say about this "overwhelming academic consensus belief in Jesus"? Well, Ehrman says, and I quote (yet again!) "Jesus certainly existed". And of his opinion on that existence, he says "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees".

IOW - when people in these threads say they rely on the fact that "the expert historians all agree", what that actually means is that people like Bart Ehrman agrees and that the people Ehrman describes as "almost every trained scholar on the planet" all agree with statements such as that from Ehrman who says "Jesus certainly existed" and the almost equally well known JD Crossan who says "the crucifixion of Jesus is just about the most certain fact in all of ancient history"....

... those ARE the sort of "expert historians" who people in these threads are relying upon when they say "the experts all agree". Those are the sort of expressions of "certainty" that these "expert historians" claim to find in the bible.

And if that is not in fact surreptitiously implying a claim getting very close to "proof", then I'd like to know what is.

 

[Belz...]

Hi, Belz.
That makes sense, until I'm reminded of the Ebionites^WP.
"Tertullian was the first to write against a heresiarch called Ebion; scholars believe he derived this name from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as "followers of Ebion a derivation now considered mistaken for lack of any more substantial references to such a figure.[11][13]"

Heresiarch is especially good, don't you think?

Not sure I see how this answers my point, though. I didn't say the case was closed. I said it made sense, and that the alternative was even more problematic.

 

[Belz...]

It's not intended as a set-up; just wanted to know because I read (read as in present tense) that there are many writings attributed to at least several different authors, none of which we can discover if they were really named Paul. That's why the scare quotes.

That's irrelevant to the question I asked to IanS, who won't address it, of course. The question is whether we should believe that Paul was entirely fictional himself because little to no evidence exists of his existence, outside biblical claims, themselves full of supernatural nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

Speaking of Paul, he's recorded as performing several miracles in Acts. Does that mean he didn't exist either?

You assume every character existed because they are found in Acts?

The Holy Ghost was performing miracle in Acts. Doesn't that mean the Holy Ghost exist?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

It's not intended as a set-up; just wanted to know because I read (read as in present tense) that there are many writings attributed to at least several different authors, none of which we can discover if they were really named Paul. That's why the scare quotes.

OK. I wasn't suggesting anything, and used scare quotes of my own for "Luke" because the authorship of Acts is similarly murky. I just didn't know for sure what you were asking. The authorship of some "Pauline" epistles is definitely controversial - even in the church, it's pretty much accepted that Hebrews wasn't written by him - but we know that they were preserved and accepted into the NT canon because they were claimed and believed to be written by him, and there's a core of texts (which I called his "Greatest Hits") which are nigh on unquestioned. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

You assume every character existed because they are found in Acts?

The Holy Ghost was performing miracle in Acts. Doesn't that mean the Holy Ghost exist?

Um, no. Just no. I applied your preferred methodology to another person, and asked if you considered that it still held. I'm taking no position on the accuracy of every last jot and tittle in Acts or any other book.

You mock anyone who holds out even the slightest possibility of a HJ, because he's claimed to have done miraculous things. As I observed, Paul's also claimed to have performed miracles - including bringing Eutychus back to life. So will you follow your own methodology and dismiss any possibility that Paul could have really existed?

 

[IanS]

OK. I wasn't suggesting anything, and used scare quotes of my own for "Luke" because the authorship of Acts is similarly murky. I just didn't know for sure what you were asking. The authorship of some "Pauline" epistles is definitely controversial - even in the church, it's pretty much accepted that Hebrews wasn't written by him - but we know that they were preserved and accepted into the NT canon because they were claimed and believed to be written by him, and there's a core of texts (which I called his "Greatest Hits") which are nigh on unquestioned. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Just out of interest - if 6 or 7 of the Pauline epistles are said to be "nigh on unquestioned" as "written by him", how does anyone actually know that?

All we have, at very best, are Christian copies made about 150 years after Paul was said to have died. We have not one single word ever known to be in Paul's own writing.

So what does it actually mean for anyone to say "6 or 7 of Paul's letters were actually written by him"? How does anyone know that? Why would anyone even think that, given that we have absolutely no examples of Paul's writing to compare with any of these latter copies of the "genuine" Pauline letters?

It sound to me as if what all this really means is that 6 or 7 of the letters appear to be written in similar style and could be from the same author, whoever that was. And no more than that.

 

[dejudge]

.... Everybody except Galileo did not believe the earth was flat in the seventeenth century. No educated person believed any such thing, and neither did the Church.

You seem to have no idea that Galileo was placed under house arrest by the Roman Church for advocating that the earth was not flat, not stationary, but revolved around the sun.

I will now show that Christians used the Bible to argue that the earth was flat, stationary, and that the Sun revolved around the earth.

We have "Christian Topography" attributed to a Christian monk called Cosmas

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_01_book1.htm

Cosmas' Christian Topography

.... But should one wish to examine more elaborately the question of the Antipodes, he would easily find them to be old wives' fables.

For if two men on opposite sides placed the soles of their feet each against each, whether they chose to stand on earth, or water, or air, or fire, or any other kind of body, how could both be found standing upright? The one would assuredly be found in the natural upright position, and the other, contrary to nature, head downward.

20 Such notions are opposed to reason, and alien to our nature and condition. And how, again, when it rains upon both of them, is it possible to say that the rain falls down upon the two, and not that it falls down to the one and falls up to the other, or falls against them, or towards them, or away from them.

For to think that there are Antipodes compels us to think also that rain falls on them from an opposite direction to ours; and any one will, with good reason, deride these ludicrous theories, which set forth principles incongruous, ill-adjusted, and contrary to nature.

Never, Never again must we allow people who use the Bible as history without evidence to re-construct the past or to determine the Topography of the earth.

 

[Craig B]

I think that's probably true in the literal sense that most people are not so silly or unguarded as to say Jesus has been proved true. But your statement (which has been said before by most pro HJ people here) is hiding a problem in what HJ people have said. Namely ...

... most of the HJ people in this thread and the other current and immediately preceding HJ threads, have cited as their main and repeated argument, that expert scholars all agree that Jesus did indeed exist.

But as I have pointed out at least 50 times - the most prominent of those expert "historians" who people are refereeing to when they say "expert scholars and historians", is Bart Ehrman. So just to be really clear what I am explaining about that - when pro-HJ people in these threads claim that a very powerful persuasive factor is that "expert historians" do agree that Jesus was real, although they do not wish to say so, the fact is that Bart Ehrman is precisely one of the so-called "expert historians" they are relying upon. In fact Ehrman is, as I say, by far the most prominent and most frequently cited of all such "expert historians".

So what does Ehrman actually say about this "overwhelming academic consensus belief in Jesus"? Well, Ehrman says, and I quote (yet again!) "Jesus certainly existed". And of his opinion on that existence, he says "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees".

IOW - when people in these threads say they rely on the fact that "the expert historians all agree", what that actually means is that people like Bart Ehrman agrees and that the people Ehrman describes as "almost every trained scholar on the planet" all agree with statements such as that from Ehrman who says "Jesus certainly existed" and the almost equally well known JD Crossan who says "the crucifixion of Jesus is just about the most certain fact in all of ancient history"....

... those ARE the sort of "expert historians" who people in these threads are relying upon when they say "the experts all agree". Those are the sort of expressions of "certainty" that these "expert historians" claim to find in the bible.

And if that is not in fact surreptitiously implying a claim getting very close to "proof", then I'd like to know what is.

OK. People here aren't saying it. But they're saying the majority of scholars accept it. But the majority of scholars here means Bart Ehrman, to all intents and purposes. Ehrman says it's certain. So the pro HJ posters here have a problem. That's your argument. I don't think its a very strong one. Maybe Ehrman is right about the level of assurance he and other scholars have reached. I never like expressing certainty about historical matters, but maybe Ehrman is happy with that. Fine. Take it up with him.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Just out of interest - if 6 or 7 of the Pauline epistles are said to be "nigh on unquestioned" as "written by him", how does anyone actually know that?

All we have, at very best, are Christian copies made about 150 years after Paul was said to have died. We have not one single word ever known to be in Paul's own writing.

So what does it actually mean for anyone to say "6 or 7 of Paul's letters were actually written by him"? How does anyone know that? Why would anyone even think that, given that we have absolutely no examples of Paul's writing to compare with any of these latter copies of the "genuine" Pauline letters?

It sound to me as if what all this really means is that 6 or 7 of the letters appear to be written in similar style and could be from the same author, whoever that was. And no more than that.

You'd have to ask people who are more familiar than me with that area of study.

Does this mean that you're seriously contemplating the possibility that Paul didn't exist either? Is it myths all the way down?

 

[zugzwang]

OK. People here aren't saying it. But they're saying the majority of scholars accept it. But the majority of scholars here means Bart Ehrman, to all intents and purposes. Ehrman says it's certain. So the pro HJ posters here have a problem. That's your argument. I don't think its a very strong one. Maybe Ehrman is right about the level of assurance he and other scholars have reached. I never like expressing certainty about historical matters, but maybe Ehrman is happy with that. Fine. Take it up with him.

Yes, I find Ehrman's 'certainty' to be very odd. But I have noticed that scholars seem to ignore MJ theories, as if they are just not within the ambit of professional history. This is quite interesting, but turns into a sort of meta-discussion about the nature of history, historical method, peer review, and so on. I suppose it amounts to saying that MJ (or at least current notions of MJ) is not even wrong. But maybe Carrier's book will change this. There seem to be all kinds of books coming out - I think Tim O'Neill is writing one (not about HJ, but about history), and I think R. J. Hoffman is also, which should be interesting, as he has been churning out essays on HJ/MJ.

 

[IanS]

OK. People here aren't saying it. But they're saying the majority of scholars accept it. But the majority of scholars here means Bart Ehrman, to all intents and purposes. Ehrman says it's certain. So the pro HJ posters here have a problem. That's your argument. I don't think its a very strong one. Maybe Ehrman is right about the level of assurance he and other scholars have reached. I never like expressing certainty about historical matters, but maybe Ehrman is happy with that. Fine. Take it up with him.

Why do I have to take it up with Ehrman? That's another total irrelevance.

The point is that when people here keep saying that a very good reason to believe in Jesus is that "historians" all agree that Jesus was real, what they really mean is that bible-studies scholars like Bart Ehrman believe that he was real and where he further claimed that "all properly trained scholars on the planet agree" .... those ARE the vast majority of the people you are talking about when you say "all historians agree".

But when people here make that claim, they can never cite any credible evidence ever produced by those experts to show that Jesus probably existed. In fact, the best that has appeared is what I had to quote myself from Bart Ehrman who says his two main pieces of evidence which make Jesus "certain" are that the bible says that Paul met James, and that the four canonical gospels count as seven independent "attestations", which he says is an exceptionally good and convincing number .

So where is this (reliable & credible) "expert" evidence of Jesus? We are still waiting for any hint of it.

 

[dejudge]

pakeha wrote:

zuzwang, what would you consider a positive argument for a MJ?

Interesting question. There seem to be at least 3 versions of MJ, and maybe more.

1. The Doherty type MJ, which is an explicitly celestial and non-human figure, who is originally the focus of Christian worship, and then gets turned into a human figure.

2. The idea that stories about Jesus spring up spontaneously, without any real person being involved.

3. The idea that the stories about Jesus are forged, by person or persons unknown, maybe in the 2nd century.

You seem to have very little knowledge that those who argue for an HJ also admit OPENLY that the stories about Jesus are forgeries.

See Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" page 181-182 CE.

Bart Ehrman did ADMIT we don't know who wrote the Gospels and that they were certainly not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And even more devastating, Bart Ehrman ADMITTED that many of the so-called MUNDANE events did not happen as described like the Census of Cyrenius, the killing of the innocent, the birth in Bethlehem, the triumphal entry, and the Barabbas exchange.

Essentially, Bart Ehrman has really inadvertently shown that the Entire story of Jesus could have been fabricated.

In effect, Jesus is all Woo-Woo, ALL fiction--and NO history.

Jesus is a perfect Myth.

 

[IanS]

You'd have to ask people who are more familiar than me with that area of study.

Does this mean that you're seriously contemplating the possibility that Paul didn't exist either? Is it myths all the way down?

I have no idea what evidence is known for Paul's existence. But that is clearly not what I suggested anyway.

What I said was that we presumably do not in fact know who wrote the 6 or 7 letters that are always said to be "authentic" to Paul himself. That just seems to be yet another in endless book of historic "expert" HJ misrepresentations.

Presumably all that can be said about those "authentic" letters, is that they all appear to be written by the same person or in the same/similar style. Though who that writer actually was, we have afaik no idea.

 

[dejudge]

You'd have to ask people who are more familiar than me with that area of study.

Does this mean that you're seriously contemplating the possibility that Paul didn't exist either? Is it myths all the way down?

Do you not understand that there are apologetic writers who supposedly lived in the 2nd century, up to C 180 CE, who wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus?

Do you NOT understand that there are Apologetic writings that Place the Pauline Corpus AFTER Revelation of John? Apologetics claim the Revelation of John was written in the time of Trajan c 98-117 CE.

Are you not aware that Acts of the Apostles does not state anywhere that Paul wrote Epistles up to c 62 CE?

Do you have no idea that Origen admitted that Celsus in "True Discourse" did not mention Paul and it is evident that Celsus did not because there is NO argument or questions about anything in Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline Corpus?

Are you not aware that Apologetic writers claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed and that Paul knew gLuke. The first to mention gLuke was Irenaeus no earlier than c 180 CE.

There is an abundance of evidence that suggest the Pauline Corpus are indeed forgeries.

There is no corroborative evidence for the Pauline Corpus as 1st century writings before c 62 CE in or out the Bible.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha wrote:

zuzwang, what would you consider a positive argument for a MJ?

Interesting question. There seem to be at least 3 versions of MJ, and maybe more.

1. The Doherty type MJ, which is an explicitly celestial and non-human figure, who is originally the focus of Christian worship, and then gets turned into a human figure.

2. The idea that stories about Jesus spring up spontaneously, without any real person being involved.

3. The idea that the stories about Jesus are forged, by person or persons unknown, maybe in the 2nd century.

Well, the arguments for each one of these would vary. In relation to 1, I suppose it would be good to find some clues about an early Christian group, who did worship a celestial and non-human figure. I think Doherty argues that there is evidence for this, for example, when Paul talks about having died with Christ, he does not mean his actual death, but a kind of spiritual or allegorical death. This is ingenious, but I'm not convinced it shows that Paul had a full-on Platonic view of Christ, since Jewish rhetoric is full of allegories and metaphors, (for example, 'I am the vine, you are the branches'). However, this is a complicated area.

In relation to 2, I suppose in the main, you have to discredit HJ! You can also of course, show how derivative some of the elements in the Jesus story are - from the Jewish Bible for example (OT), and then argue that the whole thing is like this. Or you could argue that in an era where Jewish preachers seem to be ten a penny, that it is plausible that a stock figure should arise as a popular folk-lore type legend (not myth).

(3) seems a tough one to me. I've never seen arguments for wholesale forgery, except the fact that most Christian writings are known from late manuscripts, e.g. 11th century. But this is also true of Aristotle, isn't it?

All I can say, zugzwang, is that if those are the options for a MJ, then count me in as an HJer.

My own thought is that the MJ stance doesn't revolve around an alternative theory, but rather a deep sense of WTF? respecting the Jesus story as we know it.

My own thought is that the trappings of Christology were draped on the figure featured in stories about one (or more!) religious nutters back in the day.

I find the destruction of records in both Rome and Jerusalem in the 1st century more or less guarantees we'll most likely never get to the jelly in the doughnut.
Still, speculation on the subject is an interesting hobby, isn't it.