Posted on 01/24/2025 2:16:53 PM PST by daniel1212
There is a near universal majority of scholars in many fields—historians, Bible scholars, New Testament scholars, philologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, literature, folklore and oral history specialists, paleographers, linguistics scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, those in the field of the Classics, a Dead Sea scroll specialist or two, and many others—from atheist to Jew to liberal to fundamentalist Christian, who all agree Jesus existed.
Over the last two hundred years, there has also been a small group called “mythicists” who have asserted there was no historical Jesus. Very few mythicists are scholars; I know of two currently. They tend to be exclusively atheistic with an anti-religious agenda and are often former Christian fundamentalists. They tend to rely on outdated biblical criticism, much of which was not highly respected even when it was new. Mythicists tend to sacrifice sound historical method in an attempt to discredit Christianity; their theories contain little to no historical support, and they often fail to respond to the historical evidence of the Jesus’ tradition with anything beyond dismissal. Because of all of this, most scholars see the mythicist theory as a conspiracy theory—a fringe theory—not a legitimate historical theory, and so it is mostly ignored.
The reasons mythicists give for questioning Jesus’ existence can be boiled down to a few main points:
Much of this looks legitimate at first glance. Taking a deeper look reveals unanswerable historiographical problems.
I. SOURCES:
It is true there are very few early written sources outside the Bible mentioning Jesus, but this argument from silence only works if there is reason to expect otherwise. The reality is that few to no contemporary sources are a fact for everyone in ancient history. It is unreasonable to expect pagan writers to have paid attention to a simple country preacher—and a Jewish one at that—while he lived. Roman writers like Philo Judaeus had no interest in, and make no mention of, any of the various religious figures who sprang up around the empire of the time, so the fact there is no mention of Jesus either, carries little to no weight. It wasn’t until after his death—and resurrection—that word of him truly spread.
There are a limited number of non-Christian extra-biblical sources making reference to Jesus, and some of them are dubious, and some are of minimal value—but there are some.
There are 17 of these extra-biblical non-Christian sources of varying quality—which is actually pretty extraordinary for the ancient world. It’s more than we have for most ancient figures. In combination, they contain a surprising amount of information concerning the life and death of Jesus—enough it is possible to create a broad outline of most of the major facts about Jesus. Of these 17 sources, 11 mention the death of Jesus. Five speak of his crucifixion. Mythicists like to dispute the validity of these references but they are accepted by everyone else.
Mythicists often seem to forget the Bible is, originally, a set of ancient texts that can be—and are—examined accordingly. Without theology, it is still possible to find historical information.
There is no unusual silence about Jesus among early non-Christian writers. The fact there is any evidence of him among them at all is quite remarkable. They corroborate his reputation as a teacher and miracle worker and the time and manner of his death.
II. THE GOSPELS
The reliability of the gospels has been a subject of vigorous debate for the last two hundred years, especially since the nineteenth century and the adoption of the “Form Critical” method of study.
Much of the belief in the undependability of the gospels has been based on the form critics’ understanding of how oral history would have worked in that period between the death of Christ and the writing of the gospels. The model form critics assumed to base their studies on were “Icelandic folk tales” and as it turns out, that was a “rather inappropriate, and also, a very rigid model of oral tradition that we can't, really, now justify”.
We currently have decades of research into extant oral cultures, and we know much more about how it likely worked in the first century than the form critics did. Oral tradition, it turns out, doesn’t work like they thought and the conclusions based on their assumptions can no longer be seen as valid.
Birger Gerhardsson’s paradigm-altering work on Jewish rabbinical practices has also forever altered our understanding of the oral dynamic that was likely at work in early Christianity.
The question is, how important would it have been to early Christians to remember Jesus’ teachings accurately?
It was for profoundly theological reasons that early Christians were concerned with faithful memory of the past. The likelihood of the Disciples being “casual” about passing on the words and teachings of someone they saw as the source of their salvation is low. The likelihood of them being careful is high.
If oral teaching was dependable, then the gospels have a dependable foundation.
Undependability is also hung on the late dating of the gospels, but late dating is no longer simply an accepted majority view.
The list of scholars supporting early dating has now grown for multiple reasons.
Contradictions in the biblical texts are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the Gospels agree remarkably well and form a consistent portrait. Ironically, if the texts were identical, that would invalidate the texts, as that would indicate collusion of the type “let’s get our stories straight.” The Gospels share some verses, but they are also each highly unique and individual.
Mythicists claim the genre of the Gospels are myth or legendary fiction which have imposed "a fictitious historical narrative" on a "mythical cosmic savior figure" by weaving together various pseudo-historical Jesus traditions, most notably the "supernatural personage" of Paul's epistles and "ideas from Jewish Wisdom literature". (Paul will be addressed in the next section).
The great myths and legends were not authored by individuals … but were evolved naturally and instinctively by unconscious processes in oral traditions. Even if they started out as …true stories, … they still ended up for long periods of time in oral traditions and that became the principal dynamic behind their creation.
1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates that teachings about Jesus did not do this. The gospel of Jesus did not have the opportunity of such a time frame but instead began immediately after Jesus’ death.
“Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.” (Will Durant, p.557, Caesar and Christ)
Believing the gospels are fiction requires the hand-in-hand view that these works of fiction later became accepted as history. Historical and literary material can and often does acquire mythological qualities over time but nowhere is there a theory for how the reverse could occur—outside of its alleged connection to Jesus—and a theory based on one example is not a good theory. (This is nothing more than special pleading.)
The fatal flaw in this contrived idea requires the existence of an original "mythic Jesus Christianity" that existed alongside the later and better known "historical Jesus Christianity" until the latter won the battle for dominance and wiped out any reference to the former.
This is completely implausible. While the idea of Machiavellian early Christians completely erasing all trace of earlier forms of Christianity may appeal to zealots and conspiracy theorists, it simply doesn't square with the evidence.
It's true that later "orthodox" forms of Christianity were happy to burn the books of their "heretical" rivals to keep them from infecting the faithful. But this doesn't mean they were also happy to wipe out all trace or mention of these "heresies". On the contrary, they were keen to write long and detailed books explaining why their heretical rivals were wrong and why the orthodox view was right.
They often distorted their rivals' ideas when they did this and sometimes the heresy in question had been dead for so long they were confused about precisely what the heretics in question had even believed (they just knew they were wrong), but they certainly didn't erase all mention of them. They felt it was important to refute even minor or long dead heresies in as much detail as possible, just in case they rose up again (as some did occasionally).
In all these apologetic, anti-heretical literatures there is NO reference to what should have been the biggest and most threatening heresy of all - the heresy that the historical Jesus never existed. Not only would this supposed "mythic Jesus Christianity" be a major threat to "historical Jesus Christianity" even after it had declined and vanished, it would actually have been THE major threat by merit of the fact that it was the original form of Christianity.
Yet we find not a whisper about it in any of this literature. These ancient writers took the time and trouble to condemn tiny and long-extinct heretical sects, yet ignored the elephant in the room and made no mention of this primary threat to their interpretation of Jesus.
This is ridiculous—unless the whole idea of ‘historicization’ is bunk. Then it makes perfect sense.
There are issues concerning the writing of the synoptic gospels that remain unresolved, yet most have been sufficiently addressed to conclude, on strictly historical grounds, that the Synoptic Gospels are generally historically reliable and provide a dependable picture of the ministry and teaching of Jesus.
III. PAUL’s MYTH
It’s true Paul does not make a lot of references to Jesus' earthly life, but that is probably not significant by itself, since the type of literature Paul wrote did not call for much biographical data. Paul makes a reference to the fact the people he was writing to already knew ‘the basics’. It’s reasonable to surmise these basics would have included information about Jesus’ biographical data.
What is more significant is that even in letters of instruction, he does make some biographical references:
2. According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, based on a pesher (interpretation) of Zechariah 6 and 3, Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52–53 from the Septuagint.
The story of Jesus does not follow the pattern of Jewish pesher.
An important descriptive statement of what Peter and Paul actually believed is found in First Corinthians 15:3–8 rather than commentaries.
Agreed. It is the only thing they were preaching. This is consistent with the book of Acts. That means, Jesus as a person who had died and rose from the dead was being preached—from the mid thirties onward—by Paul—immediately after his conversion—in the 30s—not at some later point down the road.
The timing here is critical.
3. Carrier further argues that according to Paul (Philippians 2.7), Christ "came 'in the likeness of men' (homoiomati anthropon) and was found 'in a form like a man' (schemati euretheis hos anthropos) and (in Rom. 8.3) that he was only sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (en homoiomati sarkos hamartias). This is a doctrine of a preexistent being assuming a human body, but not being fully transformed into a man, just looking like one." This is a kind of gnosticism as gnostics believed all matter—such as the human body—was inherently evil.
Paul did believe Jesus had been a pre-existant divine and “celestial” being before becoming human—that point is argued by some, but the evidence is overwhelming—Carrier is right on that point. The problem for Carrier—one of them anyway—is that this belief does not preclude, or prove, that Paul did not also believe Jesus became a real human man.
The Philippians 2 hymn includes two sets of parallel statements moving from “the form of God” (en morphē Theou) in verse 6 to “the form of a servant” (morphēn doulou) in verse 7; both use morphé meaning embodiment, so the outer and inner essence are in harmony—which is not simply outward appearance. But the most crucial term demonstrating Carrier’s error is genomenos which means having been made or having become. It signifies a change of condition and is most often used in association with being born. He came into being, was born, as one of the human race.
In this hymn, Christ’s voluntary act of emptying himself is paralleled with his act of humbling himself to the point of death. This indicates a conscious, participative, individual and not a “personification.”
But context is everything. Romans 8:3 uses omoiōmati which is a “likeness” rather than an essence (morphé)—because this verse says Jesus was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh”—meaning he wasn’t actually made sinful. He just looked like men who were.
Romans 8:3 is very difficult to translate, because it contains grammatical problems. The common view is that v.3 is grammatically incomplete—it’s called an ‘ananacolouthon.’ For Carrier to claim he has the definitive translation for this long-standing puzzle is simply false. No one does.
Other mythicists have accepted that Paul truly believed and was simply delusional. After all this time, that is impossible to fully prove or disprove. However, it is possible to look at delusion itself, its characteristic behaviors, and what the likelihood of that would involve.
There is no support among contemporary Psychiatry for the position that religious belief is symptomatic of delusion, so it would have to be shown separately about Paul specifically, and there is nothing to support the idea that Paul was delusional.
While Paul was persecuting Jesus’ followers, and once he joined them, evidence supports that Paul believed he was dealing with recent historical events involving the death and resurrection of a real man.
IV. HELLENIZATION
Mythicists say early Christianity was widely diverse and syncretistic, (sharing common philosophical and religious ideas with other religions of the time). These included the ideas of personified aspects of God and proto-Gnosticism, and of the salvation figures—featured in mystery religions—who were supposedly a dying and rising god.
It should be noted up front that there are a number of interesting similarities between aspects of Christianity and Greco-Roman mystery cults. The question, however, is whether these similarities represent any substantive influence—consciously or unconsciously.
There is no prima facie evidence the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construction.
When studied against its Jewish background, the death and resurrection retains its unique character in the history of religions.
History and Theology in the Orthodox View
Early Christians were interested in the past history of Jesus because they considered it religiously relevant. Jesus was more than the founder of a movement, he was the source of salvation, and this was understood in thoroughly Jewish terms. It was fulfillment of the covenant promises with all the history-making significance of Israel’s God.
When we experience “myth” as disclosing profound truths about ourselves and our world, we are able to recognize that in the Jesus story, the deep truths of myth and history are fused.
In other words, there are no grounds for concluding the Jesus story is non-historical legend as some myths are, but there is every reason to conclude it is mythically as well as historically true.
It is this very conjunction of “myth” and history that creates the mystery of Christianity’s beginnings.
And therein lies the basis for the ultimately unanswerable problem for all mythicists: what is a viable alternative explanation for why Christianity began?
If Jesus wasn’t real, if he never lived, if he wasn’t there teaching his followers that he was the Messianic fulfillment of centuries of Jewish prophecy—what was the impetus that began it all? How is it possible to explain the apostles behavior? Their personality changes? Their commitment? Their endurance? Their deaths? How and why did it all start?
Mythicist arguments fail on a purely historical basis. They do not stand up to scrutiny.
I freely acknowledge that no amount of strictly historical reasoning or evidence can take the place of a relationship with the living Christ.
But it can clear a path.
I hope I have done that effectively.
Footnotes
I was an atheist until I became an adult, but I had begun searching for “the truth” about God years before. Eventually God got through to me, shook me to my core, and changed everything. In the process of searching, I studied religion and philosophy and ethics at the college and graduate levels. Today I try to use my powers for good. :-)
I am now a Christian apologist, and like other apologists: “The weapons of warfare are not the weapons of the world. Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds… tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God…” (2 Cor.10)
I am a mother of four, a grandmother of 13 perfect :-) grandchildren, and have a wonderful husband of 48 years. (That’s an old picture of when I was first married. I am sentimental about it).
Is there as much question to the existence of Muhammed?
I've never understood their basis for that reasoning. Jesus was a monkey wrench thrown into their Greco-Roman worldview. In fact, early Christians were heavily persecuted. It's unreasonable to expect the people who hated Jesus to write about Him.
That'd be like someone 100 years from now questioning if Nick Saban recently won 6 national championships while coaching at Bama.... because Auburn fans today don't like talking about it. Of course you're not going to see much about Jesus written by the people who openly persecuted the early Christians.
“ There is a near universal majority of scholars in many fields—”
That disagree with you.
Fixed it.
It’s rather silly to question whether Jesus existed.
The serious question is whether he was raised from the dead, which has also been answered by mainstream historians.
Gary Habermas shows how the consensus heavily favors Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead.
Exactly.
Habermas’ book is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
(The point being, using the biased over-skepticism of the mythicists leads to absurd conclusions in any other context.)
Bookmark
You'd be hard pressed to find another country who had a more moral person who served as their first president or first prime minister. IMHO it seems inconsequential to debate whether or not Washington as a boy chopped down a cherry tree.
Thirteen Apostles...
One died at his own hands.
One died of Old Age.
The Remaining Eleven Died at the Hands of Torture,Crucified or Stoned to Death-—
All Proclaiming Jesus As LORD !
.
You fixed nothing. What forum were you looking for?
600 years of improved writing materials after Christ, and with a militant warmongering controlled leader means far more is recorded and preserved from day one.
Bookmark.
Amen. And that seals the deal without question for me. Jesus existed, that is beyond doubt. He was raised from the dead, beyond doubt. His disciples went to their deaths under horrific circumstances and refused to give in. No one beyond an insane person would do that, let alone multiple people. the absolutely knew He was real and He was the Truth. It is irrefutable. An honest person who researches it can only come to this conclusion.
I get the point. Relates to the "bronze age God" atheism parrots, which ignores that this is due to the bronze age being when written records of much substance was found, and archaeology only finds a relative smidgen of what is buried, decomposed.
Atheist also parrots the argument that the absence of contemporary (meaning within His brief approx. 33 year life!) non-biblical evidence that Jesus was a real person means he could not have existed, by that measure, neither did Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Spartacus, Pythagoras, Sun Tzu, Leonidas the Spartan, Boudica the Celtic warrior queen, Sargon Of Akkad, Socrates, Archimedes,[1] and maybe even Alexander The Great, and Attila The Hun, and Homer,[2] whom historians overall affirm existed, as they do Jesus of Nazareth. Likewise, requiring writings from the figures themselves negates many.
However, without any actual proof, atheists overall believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for complex life with its profound intricate complexity and extensive diversity, can be all a result of purely natural processes.
Which requires much faith (biblically meaning, confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant) more so I think, than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a being of supreme power and intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter, and laws regarding the same.
Footnotes
One Cannot be Honestly searching for the Absolute Truth and Denie JESUS As Lord.
.
Amen
Hey, nice post, dude.
Our new God, AI, tells me that there is roughly a 95% possibility that Jesus Christ actually existed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.