Five reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

[Zzyzx]

.

Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.� In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity. At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus� became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians grounded in this perspective have analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

By contrast, other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.� In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position. Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, the author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All. Fitzgerald points out that for centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

Fitzgerald–who, as his book title indicates, takes the “mythical Jesus� position–is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history, uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest critics of popular Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who argued that the Romans invented Jesus) are academic Mythicists like these.

The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that serious scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself believes the stories were built on a historical kernel):

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.� (pp. 56-57)

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul� on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded.

Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began.

For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are “signed� by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, “I was there.� Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,� and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, and nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.� John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.�

For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:

Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord’s Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors’ longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

In a soon-to-be-released follow up to Nailed, entitled Jesus: Mything in Action, Fitzgerald argues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any “Jesus of Faith:�

Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the “historical Jesus� figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell.

____________________________

Author’s note: Not being an insider to this debate, my own inclination is to defer to the preponderance of relevant experts while keeping in mind that paradigm shifts do occur. This means that until either the paradigm shift happens or I become a relevant expert myself, I shall assume that the Jesus stories probably had some historical kernel. That said, I find the debate fascinating for several reasons: For one, it offers a glimpse of the methods scholars use to analyze ancient texts. Also, despite the heated back and forth between mythicists and historicists, their points of agreement may be more significant than the difference between historicized mythology and mythologized history. The presence of mythic tropes or legendary elements in the gospel stories has been broadly accepted and documented, while the imprint of any actual man who may have provided a historical kernel–how he may have lived, what he may have said, and how he died–is more hazy than most people dream.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/here-ar ... r-existed/

[Ancient of Years]

There are various reasons for taking the idea of a real historic Jesus as a reasonable working hypothesis. Among these are that Paul's letters are mostly about presenting a different picture of Jesus than an already widespread one. That is, there was already a Jesus story out there, albeit not the one Paul paints and with which he wants to replace an existing story. One can see Paul's 'private gospel' as an attempt to explain away the inconvenient fact of a messianic figure getting killed instead of becoming the 'for real' messiah. Why make up such a story if it did not really happen?

Another is that the earliest Gospel - Mark - contains very credible references to the social and religious world as it existed around 30 CE, a world that no longer existed when Mark wrote. This suggests the passing on of early traditions. The quarrels with the Pharisees about rule-obsessive elaborations of Mosaic Law sound just like s self-styled prophet who grew up in the Hillel era taking on the now predominant Shammai Pharisees. In addition, other stories Mark tells are duplicates with variations: e.g., the calming of the storm and the feeding of the multitudes, each told twice in different ways. These could be seen as early 'urban legends' old enough to have spawned separate traditions. As with Paul, these point to an early belief in a real Jesus.

These considerations - Paul and Mark - would appear to argue against the existence of Jesus itself being merely a myth that grew over time. The Gospels and other NT writings all add their own elaborations but it certainly sounds like they are elaborations on an entirely credible core story.

[Robert H]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

President Snow suddenly stopped and said, “Wait a moment, Allie. I want to tell you something.� Allie listened intently as her grandfather told her of an unforgettable experience he had once had at that place in the temple: “It was right here that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to me at the time of the death of President Woodruff. He instructed me to go right ahead and reorganize the First Presidency of the Church at once and not wait as had been done after the death of the previous presidents, and that I was to succeed President Woodruff [as President of the Church].�

President Snow held out his left hand and said, “He stood right here, about three feet above the floor. It looked as though he stood on a plate of solid gold.�

Still speaking in hushed, reverent tones, President Snow told Allie that the Savior’s appearance was so glorious and bright that he could hardly look at Him.

President Snow put his right hand on Allie’s head and said, “Now granddaughter, I want you to remember that this is the testimony of your grandfather, that he told you with his own lips that he actually saw the Savior, here in the temple, and talked with him face to face.�



When people, both modern and ancient, have seen Him, your words are nonsense.

[Zzyzx]

.

When people, both modern and ancient, have seen Him, your words are nonsense.

1) Notice carefully that the words to which you refer are not mine but are those of the source cited.

2) There is no assurance that the tale you quote (without reference) is truthful and accurate. It is from From “An Experience of My Father’s,� (Sept. 1933) relating to the fifth president of LDS Lorenzo Snow (1814-1910). Thus, an account written by someone else (second-hand at best) decades after the claimed "vision".

MANY people claim to "see" all sorts of things, including "gods". Kindly show readers why such stories should be considered to be true and accurate.

[marco]

MANY people claim to "see" all sorts of things, including "gods". Kindly show readers why such stories should be considered to be true and accurate.

Fascinating. There are lots of things that people witness that have no immediate rational explanation. A relative of mine and her husband were staying at a hotel and she saw a young man standing beside her bed, shouted out and her husband woke up to shout: "What the hell is that?" The figure seemed to sweep across the room through the wall. Both are highly educated doctors of physics. They have no explanation. They didn't stay any longer; the hotel manager wasn't at all surprised by their story.

Such stories generally attract a sneer. But what do we know of the existence of what exists? The stories will be "true" enough - but their explanation is elusive.

The problem arises when we try to attach a supernatural explanation. It is more honest to say that we just don't have an answer. To call all such experiences delusions is rather presumptuous.

[Jerry Carter]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Apparently this site has a timeout for the log in. I have tried he post. I used type 70 words a minute but now my hands shake to post several times and I get sent to the log in. When I return my post is gone. After I see my therapist I will try a different tactic. I will type on word and paste to the post. I used to type 70 words a minute but now my hands shake and I spend as much time correcting as I do typing.

[Jerry Carter]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Wow that was incoherent. Sorry gusys but I guess I made my point.

[Jerry Carter]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

You have made a number of statements such as : Most antiquities scholars� that are worthy of challenge but time will not allow. So let me get to the five points.

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. Many earlier manuscripts that are referred to in second century manuscripts no longer exist. It takes a real stretch of imagination to leap from a lack of documents to “Jesus didn’t exist.�

I have searched, as an example, for any records of trials by Pilate. I have not found any. Does that mean that Pilate as prefect of Judah never held a trial at all? It would be quite persuasive if they said they found Pilates trial documents but did not find Jesus' among them. But they don't say that, do they.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

and:

Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul� on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t j unaware or ignorant.ust vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Seems ignorant? Seems unaware? Where’s the logic? If someone doesn’t speak of Jesus then he must not exist. Paul wasn’t concerned about a biography (except his own). He was communicating to the churches about doctrine. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t aware of the miraculous claims about Jesus.

This is an argument from silence and has no validity.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.


True. But that by no means is evidence that Jesus didn’t exist.

and:

To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began.

Most Scholars date the manuscripts in the first century (Ad 70 – AD 90. Even then the dating is affected by secular concerns; such as Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple. The fact that titles were attached later is really not significant.

. 4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

First, people play fast and loose with the word “contradiction.� In logic, a contradiction only occurs if assertion A is true then assertion B must be false. If A is false, B must be true. If you assert it is cold and I assert it is hot, one of us must be wrong. If other assertions are available then it is a contrary. For example, if I call a tree an elm, and you call it a birch; only one can be right, but both can be wrong, it could be an oak, etc. It is almost impossible to find true contradictions in the Bible, much less the New testament. The word is preferred by critics for its emotional impact on the general reader.

Differences between the gospels are evidence to me of the reality of Jesus. Jesus’ reality is the only rational basis for the stories. Even today inconsistencies abound in testimonials.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

The key word is claimed. Controversy sells books.

[Zzyzx]

.

You have made a number of statements such as : Most antiquities scholars� that are worthy of challenge but time will not allow.

First, notice that I made no statements but instead quoted a fully identified source.

Second, this sub-forum is intended for discussion, not debate.

Third, the article is entitled "Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed". Bold added to emphasize that the author does not present the ideas intending them to be proof -- only reason to suspect Jesus did not exist.


If someone wishes to debate the merits of individual (or collective) ideas presented, that would be appropriate in a debate sub-forum.

[Jerry Carter]

[Replying to post 9 by Zzyzx]

I apologize. I have yet to find my way through this maze to the proper forums. I just posted a new topic that was meant to be a debate on here. Feel free to delete my posts or tell me how to do it. I will be more careful next time. Thank you for clarifying things.