Did Jesus Exist? Part I: Scholarly Opinion
Q: Was there an historical Jesus?
A: Of course there was.
Did Jesus Exist? Part I
Moderator: Moderators
Did Jesus Exist? Part I
Post #1And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #2
My expectation, when I first began to post here at DC&R, was that I would mainly be arguing with Christian fundamentalist types over issues like Bible inerrancy, or creation/evolution. It never occurred to me that I would need to defend the historicity of Jesus to other atheists. Recently that’s all that I have been doing. The notion that Jesus is a myth has become quite popular, at least on the internet. This is unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that, if we are to promote a rational worldview we should not do so under a false pretense. This is an attempt to, once and for all, put this mistaken idea to rest, at least on this forum.
"I see Lotan is still doing his AINO shtick."
I am an atheist. I have no belief in any god or other supernatural entity. In over 1600 posts on this forum I have never expressed even the slightest doubt in this regard. The question of Jesus’ historicity is, for me, a matter of history and sociology. It is a hobby. In spite of my clear anti-religious stance one poster has chosen to address me by the pejorative label AINO ("atheist in name only") due to my acceptance of a historical Jesus. I fail to see how the belief in the existence of a human being disqualifies one as an atheist. Furthermore, I’m hardly alone. Richard Dawkins, arguably the current voice of atheism, described Jesus as…
"a quite exceptionally good man… who has taught us lessons in moral philosophy which were centuries, millennia ahead of their time… there is a great deal to learn from great teachers of whom Jesus was certainly one. " – from here.
Maybe Richard Dawkins is an AINO too. Personally, I wouldn’t go nearly as far as he does. Jesus was a devout Yahwist and his moral philosophies reflected his religious belief. Whether he was a "good man" or not is surely a subjective interpretation.
This attitude, that the existence of Jesus somehow contradicts atheism, is symptomatic of some Jesus mythers who are either unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between the historical Yeshua, on whom later writings, and Christian beliefs were based, and the mythic Jesus Christ, the almighty Son o’ God. Like this…
"Of course they are loosely based on a real human being."
...and that makes all the difference.
No one is arguing for the existence of a "rock-star-level-famous godman", nor is anyone is arguing in favor of Christian dogma. Ancient accounts are full of historical persons who allegedly performed ‘wondrous deeds’. Vespasian is said to have cured blindness. Is he also, therefore, a myth?
Just as it is useful for the mythicist to confuse the historical Yeshua with the mythic Jesus Christ, so also it is useful for them to confuse biblical scholars (and historians) with apologists…
Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road. – Kenneth Humphreys
This deception is necessary to their argument, in part, because Jesus myth ‘theories’ are outside of scholarship…
"The fact that the hypothesis is pursued almost exclusively through popular appeal and/or by uncredentialed persons does not bode well for its establishment as an academically respectable position. Like it or not, there is some matter of form and procedure for getting an idea to be taken seriously by the academies of science and the humanities. It is not being respected." - Peter Kirby
Many parallels can be drawn between the Jesus-myth camp and Creationists, including these; both are generally the provenance of amateurs who lack the education and skills to examine the primary data, both rely on selective evidence drawn from secondary, often out of date sources, and both attempt to promote their ideas directly to a lay audience directly through popular media.
Support from academia for a historical Jesus is comparable to that for evolution…
"Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians." - Wikipedia
…and just like Creationists, the Jesus-mythers dismiss this scholarly consensus with charges of bias…
"Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology." – Robert M. Price
"But in the new search for the historical Jesus, the most important issue of all is being largely ignored. Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?" – Earl Doherty
"New Testament scholarship has not kept pace with today’s mythicism... Someone in the mainstream, a respected, open-minded critical scholar, unencumbered by confessional interests and peer pressure, needs to take a fresh look, to consider and address every aspect of the mythicst case in an in-depth fashion..." – Earl Doherty
"Fearful to acknowledge that both their faith and careers were built on a monumental misconception they speculated on any number of fanciful ideas…" – Kenneth Humphreys
It wouldn’t do for the Jesus-mythers to allow that the conclusions of the scholars who disagree with them are the result of objective inquiry. Instead, they rely on ad hominem; characterizing these scholars as conspiratorial, narrow-minded, and dogmatic. In this, both they and their Creationist analogues have taken a page from the master…
"We have a thousand and one past errors to correct. The self-assurance that is feigned is really only an acute form of stubbornness. At the conference tables of orthodox scientists the delusion still prevails that a thing must be proved before a “serious” person may – or can – concern himself with it." - Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, pg. 36
No pseudoscientific work is really complete without this sort of "They said I was mad! I’ll show them!" polemic against the academic establishment…
"The classical method of research into antiquity has got bogged down and so cannot come to the right unassailable kind of conclusions. It is far too attached to its stereotyped pattern of thought and leaves no scope for the imaginative ideas and speculations which alone could produce a creative impulse.
Many opportunities for research into the ancient East undoubtedly foundered on the inviolability and sacredness of the Bible. People did not dare to ask questions and voice their doubts in the face of this taboo. Even the scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, ostensibly so enlightened, were still caught in the mental fetters of thousand –year-old errors, because the way back would inevitably have called in question parts of the biblical story." - Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, pg. 63
This sort of propagandistic rhetoric adds nothing substantial to the debate over Jesus’ existence, but it’s enough to impress the faithful…
"A lot of liberal theists and atheists assume there was a person named Jesus born circa 1 ce and died at the hands of the Romans about 33 years later... his story embelished by later writers to become the basis of Christianity."
These charges of bias against scholars who support a historical Yeshua deserve some attention. One claim that surfaces frequently is that they merely "assume" that he existed…
"…most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably"." – Kenneth Humphreys
Without evidence, this is just ad hominem question begging – "Scholars must rely on false assumptions, or else they would agree with me." Here are some similar examples that I collected from the internet…
"Evolutionists assume the earth to be anywhere from 4 to 6 billion years old."
"Evolutionists assume that the chemicals of life were present on the early Earth in what they call a prebiotic soup."
"Evolutionists assume the fossil record shows the order of evolution and extinction."
"Evolutionists assume that evolution is a fact a priori."
As often as I have seen Jesus-mythers make this same sort of claim, they never provide any evidence for it besides the argument that most NT scholars are Christians. I have found one exception, though. Frank R. Zindler prefaces his article, "DID JESUS EXIST?" with this quote…
"I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus.
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)"
That looks bad; a well known New Testament scholar admitting that he takes Jesus’ existence "for granted".
Or does he? If one looks at this quote in context they will find that it is the "Second"… of "Seven small points" from the preface (pg. xvi) of Jesus and the Victory of God outlining the rationale behind the organization of this particular book, and that Wright is taking Jesus’ existence "for granted" only for the purpose of this particular book, because that is not its focus. This is quite clear when one reads the last sentence of the paragraph (which Zindler ‘mysteriously’ omits)…
"Those who persist in denying this obvious point will probably not want to read a book like this anyway."
When asked about Jesus’ historicity, Wright claimed…
"In ancient history, almost all the events that historians believe happened are recorded only once, or at most, twice (much of ancient Greek and Roman history comes into this category). What counts as "proof", therefore, is not the same as in mathematics or physics, but in the likelihood of an overall scenario fitting together and making sense." – from What Counts As Proof
So, in spite of the fact that Wright is somewhat conservative (At least for my tastes; J.P. Holding calls Jesus and the Victory of God "…the best work on the historical Jesus in existence."), he still draws his conclusions from an interpretation of evidence. Those who believe that he simply takes the historicity of Jesus "for granted" would do well to read his work rather than relying on an out-of-context quote from a hostile source. Besides this one faulty attempt, I have yet to see anyone back up the claim that scholars and historians, who meticulously examine every possible relevant datum, somehow neglect to question the brute fact of Jesus’ existence. Anyone who claims that they do not is either ignorant of historical Jesus scholarship, or is simply lying…
"If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.
I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable…
"I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition." - John Dominic Crossan, from here.
It’s not like they have never heard of the idea that Jesus might be a myth…
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars." – Robert M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pg. 200.
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."- Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pg. 16 – from Wikipedia
"That Jesus was a real figure of first-century Judean history is no longer much questioned, as it once was." – L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, pg. 95
They just consider it to be a discredited theory, and so, a waste of time…
"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their {mythicists} arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely."Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pg. 6
Even Robert Price, the only Jesus-myther (to my knowledge) who is also a serious scholar, defends the objectivity of historical Jesus scholars…
"But the very idea that there is a blazing controversy over the accuracy of the Bible is itself highly misleading. The mythic and legendary character of most of the Bible narrative has been axiomatic for serious Biblical scholarship for generations. Sure there are sectarians who resent it, like Scientific Creationists and Flat Earthers, but to depict them as the mainstream of scholarship…is the wildest kind of distortion." – Robert M. Price, from here.
"There really are only three camps on Jesus: Those who have a doctrinal axe to grind, those who've delved and understand the truth of the matter, and the vast majority who assume."
The claim that bible scholars and historians merely "assume" the existence of Jesus is little more than Jesus-myther hype. It contradicts evidence and common sense, and frankly, it’s just plain stupid, as are charges that liberal Bible scholarship somehow supports Christian dogma. There are plenty of Christian scholars that reject the virgin birth, nature miracles, prophecy, and physical resurrection, among other things. Crossan says Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs, and Ehrman thinks Jesus was a lot like David Koresh. Here’s the opinion of one of Crossan’s ‘fans’…
"Crossan is yet another Jesus Seminar scholar who's only agenda is to deconstruct the person Jesus. Crossan has a clearly naturalistic presupposition. Therefore, any hint of miracles being true is eliminated (by default) before he even starts his research (this is quite clear from this and other works by him)." - T.B. Vick – from here.
Everyone is susceptible to some sort of bias but, as a group, historical Jesus scholars have proven themselves capable of honest inquiry…
"Virtually all scholars acknowledge that the so-called nature miracles (water into wine, walking on water, feeding the multitude) are invention – pious invention, meaningful invention, but invention nevertheless. They say more about the early Christian experience of the divine than about the historical Jesus." – Russell Shorto, Gospel Truth, pp. 128-129
"Discovering what James believed about his older brother has forced me to significantly change my understandings of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity. But my overriding goal all along has been a quest for truth – no matter where it may lie, and no matter what inherited dogmas need to be abandoned in order to attain it." - Jeffrey J. Butz, The Brother of Jesus, pg. xv
Scholars like these continually undermine "long held propaganda" by de-mythologizing the gospels, and deconstructing the gospel Jesus. Besides, they are hardly the only ones against whom the charge of ‘bias’ could be leveled. From this critique of the Jesus Seminar…
"Scholars of religion have rightly come to be suspicious of theologically driven scholarship. We should be equally suspicious of atheologically driven scholarship, or any ideologically driven scholarship, political or otherwise." – from here.
But, are Jesus-mythers just as likely to have their own "axe to grind"? Here are a few headlines from the homepage of the jesusneverexisted.com website...
"Sexually hung up Christians"
"Saving souls by liberal use of torture"
"Morose, Misogynistic, Vindictive"
"Natural Born Killers"
"Illuminating the terrifying history of a morbid cult that destroyed the ancient world"
"The cost to humanity of fifteen centuries of Christian savagery – of hundreds of millions of lives brutalised and truncated, sacrificed to war, torture, pogrom, burning, pestilence and plague – is incalculable."
And just in case those messages are too subtle...
"Christianity is the worst disaster in human history"
One might begin to wonder what any of these have to do with the question of Jesus' existence. The answer is - absolutely nothing. Humphrey’s jesusneverexisted site is a joke. It’s a vehicle for inflammatory rhetoric propped up by cherrypicked (and occasionally erroneous) ‘evidence’. To truly appreciate how bad it really is, I would suggest comparing it to Bernard D. Muller’s Jesus, a historical reconstruction site.
But isn’t all of this just an argument from authority? Well, yes…and no…
"We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so."
Everyone relies, to some degree, on the expertise of others. Even experts in a given field rely on the work of their peers. Physicians are experts on medicine, golf pros are experts on golf, and historians are experts on history. The fact that "almost all Biblical scholars and historians" support a historical Jesus isn’t necessarily proof that he existed, but it doesn’t hurt the case either. I thought Ghost_of_Amityville put it rather well…
"It would be interesting to wonder if there is a kind of hypocrisy among some people. (I'm not thinking of anyone in particular. I'm just thinking in general.) We should totally look for a situation where someone mocks people who deny the scientific theory of evolution on religious grounds (even though the consensus of independent scientists concludes that the theory of evolution is more than just a mere hypothesis that can be rejected), but then turn around and claim Jesus was a myth (even though the consensus of independent historians concludes that the historicity of Jesus is more than just a mere hypothesis that can be rejected)." - from here.
It causes me to wonder then, why, in the face of such an overwhelming scholarly consensus, so many feel the need to argue against Jesus’ historicity. Since Jesus-mythers, as a group, lack the education and interpretive skills of more serious scholars I am persuaded that, as one blogger has noted, their skepticism is "the product of an insecure atheistic desire to ‘disprove’ a central Christian tenet." On his jesusneverexisted.com website Kenneth Humphreys lists, creationist style, scholars (…including even himself!) who have "dared to question the story of Jesus" and "challenged the very existence of the godman". Some of those on this list can only charitably be called ‘scholars’ (Does Humphreys even speak Greek? That would seem a minimum requirement.), and of the remainder, many do not reject the historicity of Jesus at all! A few examples…
"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community." - Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pg 13
One wonders if Humphreys realizes that his reference suggests that he’s not a "sane person"!
"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." – from Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50
"When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses." – Albert Schweitzer
"In his latest works, Wells has somewhat moderated his views, allowing for the possibility that certain elements of the Gospel traditions might be based on a historical figure from the first-century Palestine. However, Wells insists that this line of first-century traditions is separate from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early documents, and that these two traditions have different origins. Wells concludes that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task." – from Wikipedia
"To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [See G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]" – from here.
And then there are the quacks. Kersey Graves’ ‘scholarship’ is so poor that Internet Infidels needs a disclaimer…
"…the scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book." – from here.
A criticism of Graves’ work by fellow mythicist Richard Carrier can be found here.
Regarding his intellectual heir, Acharya S…
"Robert Price, a professor of Theology and another proponent of the Christ-myth hypothesis, was at one time critical of Acharya's writing:
"Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations."
Acharya subsequently wrote a rebuttal to Price's review. Price has since retracted his attack on Acharya. On Sept. 1, 2006, Price and Acharya guested together on the Infidel Guy radio show and the two have plans for future works together. Price has also written a complimentary review of her recent ebook, a summary of the "life of Jesus" titled WHO WAS JESUS?" – from Wikipedia
"The claims of Acharya S have been criticized for a number of reasons. Her detractors say:
•Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims.
•Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point.
•The sources for her books, including The World's 16 Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves and Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets by Barbara Walker, are themselves of suspect authority and lacking in primary research.
Her work shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, and in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions." - from Wikipedia
Similar charges have been made against Freke and Gandy…
"According to some critics, Freke and Gandy make selective use of quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), use out of date scholarship, and are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda." – from Wikipedia
One of the more interesting characters on Humphreys’ list is Luigi Cascioli who gained notoriety recently by filing a lawsuit against the Catholic Church. Here’s an excerpt from that lawsuit…
"That the figure of Jesus has been fully constructed over a certain John of Gamala , son of Judas from Gamala, known as the Galilean, is irrefutably known by such a great number of proofs as to remove whatever doubts about the falsifications carried out by the compilers of the Gospels. It would suffice that concerning the transformation of the appellation Nazireo, as was usually called John of Gamala as inhabitant of Nazareth , to show in the most absolute manner the impersonation stated." – from here.
There’s just one little problem…
"John of Gamala is a fictional character who features in a nineteenth century novel called "For the Temple" by G. A. Henty. The book depicts him as a heroic figure who fought the Romans especially when they made plain their plans to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem (70 A.D.). Later in the novel he becomes a follower of Jesus. Henty states in the preface to the book that John of Gamala is his own creation." - from Wikipedia
According to Cascioli, the authors of the gospels, and just about everyone else, never referred to the Messiah as "Jesus" until around 180 CE! To be fair, Josephus mentions a John, except that his story postdates even Paul’s death…
"It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it. He was a cunning knave, and of a temper that could put on various shapes; very rash in expecting great things, and very sagacious in bringing about what he hoped for. It was known to every body that he was fond of war, in order to thrust himself into authority; and the seditious part of the people of Gischala were under his management, by whose means the populace, who seemed ready to send ambassadors in order to a surrender, waited for the coming of the Romans in battle-array."
- from Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter 2. 1
I find Cascioli's views to be a little 'out there' but, hey maybe it's just me.
To summarize:
An historical Jesus doesn’t contradict atheism; Jesus was a human being, not a god. The near-unanimous scholarly opinion is that Jesus existed. Charges of bias against the academic community from amateur proponents of the Jesus-myth are unfounded, and part of a larger propagandistic agenda, similar in many respects to Creationism, and employing many of the same methods (including appealing to popular opinion, listing of sympathetic ‘scholars’, use of out of date, discredited sources, out of context quotes, selective evidence, and a willingness to include almost anyone who rejects Jesus’ historicity).
"I see Lotan is still doing his AINO shtick."
I am an atheist. I have no belief in any god or other supernatural entity. In over 1600 posts on this forum I have never expressed even the slightest doubt in this regard. The question of Jesus’ historicity is, for me, a matter of history and sociology. It is a hobby. In spite of my clear anti-religious stance one poster has chosen to address me by the pejorative label AINO ("atheist in name only") due to my acceptance of a historical Jesus. I fail to see how the belief in the existence of a human being disqualifies one as an atheist. Furthermore, I’m hardly alone. Richard Dawkins, arguably the current voice of atheism, described Jesus as…
"a quite exceptionally good man… who has taught us lessons in moral philosophy which were centuries, millennia ahead of their time… there is a great deal to learn from great teachers of whom Jesus was certainly one. " – from here.
Maybe Richard Dawkins is an AINO too. Personally, I wouldn’t go nearly as far as he does. Jesus was a devout Yahwist and his moral philosophies reflected his religious belief. Whether he was a "good man" or not is surely a subjective interpretation.
This attitude, that the existence of Jesus somehow contradicts atheism, is symptomatic of some Jesus mythers who are either unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between the historical Yeshua, on whom later writings, and Christian beliefs were based, and the mythic Jesus Christ, the almighty Son o’ God. Like this…
This kind of ‘bait and switch’ argument is a logical fallacy known as Division; the Jesus myther makes the illogical assertion that since supernatural claims about Jesus cannot be true, then no claims at all about Jesus are true. Sometimes, I’m sure this is an honest mistake, but often it is not…buddhahead wrote: No man named Jesus ever existed, neither did any of the other gods, because they are myths.
As much as I applaud the Duke for including at least this much rational content in his posts, this is nothing that I haven’t already said many times, many ways, for years now. The problem is that, creationist-style, he only selectively quotes me and omits the punch line…The Duke of Vandals wrote: “The Jesuses referred to in the four canonical Christian gospels didn’t exist. They are literary creations.”
- Lotan
"Of course they are loosely based on a real human being."
...and that makes all the difference.
No one is arguing for the existence of a "rock-star-level-famous godman", nor is anyone is arguing in favor of Christian dogma. Ancient accounts are full of historical persons who allegedly performed ‘wondrous deeds’. Vespasian is said to have cured blindness. Is he also, therefore, a myth?
Just as it is useful for the mythicist to confuse the historical Yeshua with the mythic Jesus Christ, so also it is useful for them to confuse biblical scholars (and historians) with apologists…
Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road. – Kenneth Humphreys
This deception is necessary to their argument, in part, because Jesus myth ‘theories’ are outside of scholarship…
"The fact that the hypothesis is pursued almost exclusively through popular appeal and/or by uncredentialed persons does not bode well for its establishment as an academically respectable position. Like it or not, there is some matter of form and procedure for getting an idea to be taken seriously by the academies of science and the humanities. It is not being respected." - Peter Kirby
Many parallels can be drawn between the Jesus-myth camp and Creationists, including these; both are generally the provenance of amateurs who lack the education and skills to examine the primary data, both rely on selective evidence drawn from secondary, often out of date sources, and both attempt to promote their ideas directly to a lay audience directly through popular media.
Support from academia for a historical Jesus is comparable to that for evolution…
"Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians." - Wikipedia
…and just like Creationists, the Jesus-mythers dismiss this scholarly consensus with charges of bias…
"Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology." – Robert M. Price
"But in the new search for the historical Jesus, the most important issue of all is being largely ignored. Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?" – Earl Doherty
"New Testament scholarship has not kept pace with today’s mythicism... Someone in the mainstream, a respected, open-minded critical scholar, unencumbered by confessional interests and peer pressure, needs to take a fresh look, to consider and address every aspect of the mythicst case in an in-depth fashion..." – Earl Doherty
"Fearful to acknowledge that both their faith and careers were built on a monumental misconception they speculated on any number of fanciful ideas…" – Kenneth Humphreys
It wouldn’t do for the Jesus-mythers to allow that the conclusions of the scholars who disagree with them are the result of objective inquiry. Instead, they rely on ad hominem; characterizing these scholars as conspiratorial, narrow-minded, and dogmatic. In this, both they and their Creationist analogues have taken a page from the master…
"We have a thousand and one past errors to correct. The self-assurance that is feigned is really only an acute form of stubbornness. At the conference tables of orthodox scientists the delusion still prevails that a thing must be proved before a “serious” person may – or can – concern himself with it." - Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, pg. 36
No pseudoscientific work is really complete without this sort of "They said I was mad! I’ll show them!" polemic against the academic establishment…
"The classical method of research into antiquity has got bogged down and so cannot come to the right unassailable kind of conclusions. It is far too attached to its stereotyped pattern of thought and leaves no scope for the imaginative ideas and speculations which alone could produce a creative impulse.
Many opportunities for research into the ancient East undoubtedly foundered on the inviolability and sacredness of the Bible. People did not dare to ask questions and voice their doubts in the face of this taboo. Even the scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, ostensibly so enlightened, were still caught in the mental fetters of thousand –year-old errors, because the way back would inevitably have called in question parts of the biblical story." - Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods, pg. 63
This sort of propagandistic rhetoric adds nothing substantial to the debate over Jesus’ existence, but it’s enough to impress the faithful…
"A lot of liberal theists and atheists assume there was a person named Jesus born circa 1 ce and died at the hands of the Romans about 33 years later... his story embelished by later writers to become the basis of Christianity."
These charges of bias against scholars who support a historical Yeshua deserve some attention. One claim that surfaces frequently is that they merely "assume" that he existed…
"…most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably"." – Kenneth Humphreys
Without evidence, this is just ad hominem question begging – "Scholars must rely on false assumptions, or else they would agree with me." Here are some similar examples that I collected from the internet…
"Evolutionists assume the earth to be anywhere from 4 to 6 billion years old."
"Evolutionists assume that the chemicals of life were present on the early Earth in what they call a prebiotic soup."
"Evolutionists assume the fossil record shows the order of evolution and extinction."
"Evolutionists assume that evolution is a fact a priori."
As often as I have seen Jesus-mythers make this same sort of claim, they never provide any evidence for it besides the argument that most NT scholars are Christians. I have found one exception, though. Frank R. Zindler prefaces his article, "DID JESUS EXIST?" with this quote…
"I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus.
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)"
That looks bad; a well known New Testament scholar admitting that he takes Jesus’ existence "for granted".
Or does he? If one looks at this quote in context they will find that it is the "Second"… of "Seven small points" from the preface (pg. xvi) of Jesus and the Victory of God outlining the rationale behind the organization of this particular book, and that Wright is taking Jesus’ existence "for granted" only for the purpose of this particular book, because that is not its focus. This is quite clear when one reads the last sentence of the paragraph (which Zindler ‘mysteriously’ omits)…
"Those who persist in denying this obvious point will probably not want to read a book like this anyway."
When asked about Jesus’ historicity, Wright claimed…
"In ancient history, almost all the events that historians believe happened are recorded only once, or at most, twice (much of ancient Greek and Roman history comes into this category). What counts as "proof", therefore, is not the same as in mathematics or physics, but in the likelihood of an overall scenario fitting together and making sense." – from What Counts As Proof
So, in spite of the fact that Wright is somewhat conservative (At least for my tastes; J.P. Holding calls Jesus and the Victory of God "…the best work on the historical Jesus in existence."), he still draws his conclusions from an interpretation of evidence. Those who believe that he simply takes the historicity of Jesus "for granted" would do well to read his work rather than relying on an out-of-context quote from a hostile source. Besides this one faulty attempt, I have yet to see anyone back up the claim that scholars and historians, who meticulously examine every possible relevant datum, somehow neglect to question the brute fact of Jesus’ existence. Anyone who claims that they do not is either ignorant of historical Jesus scholarship, or is simply lying…
"If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.
I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable…
"I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition." - John Dominic Crossan, from here.
It’s not like they have never heard of the idea that Jesus might be a myth…
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars." – Robert M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pg. 200.
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."- Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pg. 16 – from Wikipedia
"That Jesus was a real figure of first-century Judean history is no longer much questioned, as it once was." – L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, pg. 95
They just consider it to be a discredited theory, and so, a waste of time…
"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their {mythicists} arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely."Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pg. 6
Even Robert Price, the only Jesus-myther (to my knowledge) who is also a serious scholar, defends the objectivity of historical Jesus scholars…
"But the very idea that there is a blazing controversy over the accuracy of the Bible is itself highly misleading. The mythic and legendary character of most of the Bible narrative has been axiomatic for serious Biblical scholarship for generations. Sure there are sectarians who resent it, like Scientific Creationists and Flat Earthers, but to depict them as the mainstream of scholarship…is the wildest kind of distortion." – Robert M. Price, from here.
"There really are only three camps on Jesus: Those who have a doctrinal axe to grind, those who've delved and understand the truth of the matter, and the vast majority who assume."
The claim that bible scholars and historians merely "assume" the existence of Jesus is little more than Jesus-myther hype. It contradicts evidence and common sense, and frankly, it’s just plain stupid, as are charges that liberal Bible scholarship somehow supports Christian dogma. There are plenty of Christian scholars that reject the virgin birth, nature miracles, prophecy, and physical resurrection, among other things. Crossan says Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs, and Ehrman thinks Jesus was a lot like David Koresh. Here’s the opinion of one of Crossan’s ‘fans’…
"Crossan is yet another Jesus Seminar scholar who's only agenda is to deconstruct the person Jesus. Crossan has a clearly naturalistic presupposition. Therefore, any hint of miracles being true is eliminated (by default) before he even starts his research (this is quite clear from this and other works by him)." - T.B. Vick – from here.
Everyone is susceptible to some sort of bias but, as a group, historical Jesus scholars have proven themselves capable of honest inquiry…
"Virtually all scholars acknowledge that the so-called nature miracles (water into wine, walking on water, feeding the multitude) are invention – pious invention, meaningful invention, but invention nevertheless. They say more about the early Christian experience of the divine than about the historical Jesus." – Russell Shorto, Gospel Truth, pp. 128-129
"Discovering what James believed about his older brother has forced me to significantly change my understandings of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity. But my overriding goal all along has been a quest for truth – no matter where it may lie, and no matter what inherited dogmas need to be abandoned in order to attain it." - Jeffrey J. Butz, The Brother of Jesus, pg. xv
Scholars like these continually undermine "long held propaganda" by de-mythologizing the gospels, and deconstructing the gospel Jesus. Besides, they are hardly the only ones against whom the charge of ‘bias’ could be leveled. From this critique of the Jesus Seminar…
"Scholars of religion have rightly come to be suspicious of theologically driven scholarship. We should be equally suspicious of atheologically driven scholarship, or any ideologically driven scholarship, political or otherwise." – from here.
But, are Jesus-mythers just as likely to have their own "axe to grind"? Here are a few headlines from the homepage of the jesusneverexisted.com website...
"Sexually hung up Christians"
"Saving souls by liberal use of torture"
"Morose, Misogynistic, Vindictive"
"Natural Born Killers"
"Illuminating the terrifying history of a morbid cult that destroyed the ancient world"
"The cost to humanity of fifteen centuries of Christian savagery – of hundreds of millions of lives brutalised and truncated, sacrificed to war, torture, pogrom, burning, pestilence and plague – is incalculable."
And just in case those messages are too subtle...
"Christianity is the worst disaster in human history"
One might begin to wonder what any of these have to do with the question of Jesus' existence. The answer is - absolutely nothing. Humphrey’s jesusneverexisted site is a joke. It’s a vehicle for inflammatory rhetoric propped up by cherrypicked (and occasionally erroneous) ‘evidence’. To truly appreciate how bad it really is, I would suggest comparing it to Bernard D. Muller’s Jesus, a historical reconstruction site.
But isn’t all of this just an argument from authority? Well, yes…and no…
"We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so."
Everyone relies, to some degree, on the expertise of others. Even experts in a given field rely on the work of their peers. Physicians are experts on medicine, golf pros are experts on golf, and historians are experts on history. The fact that "almost all Biblical scholars and historians" support a historical Jesus isn’t necessarily proof that he existed, but it doesn’t hurt the case either. I thought Ghost_of_Amityville put it rather well…
"It would be interesting to wonder if there is a kind of hypocrisy among some people. (I'm not thinking of anyone in particular. I'm just thinking in general.) We should totally look for a situation where someone mocks people who deny the scientific theory of evolution on religious grounds (even though the consensus of independent scientists concludes that the theory of evolution is more than just a mere hypothesis that can be rejected), but then turn around and claim Jesus was a myth (even though the consensus of independent historians concludes that the historicity of Jesus is more than just a mere hypothesis that can be rejected)." - from here.
It causes me to wonder then, why, in the face of such an overwhelming scholarly consensus, so many feel the need to argue against Jesus’ historicity. Since Jesus-mythers, as a group, lack the education and interpretive skills of more serious scholars I am persuaded that, as one blogger has noted, their skepticism is "the product of an insecure atheistic desire to ‘disprove’ a central Christian tenet." On his jesusneverexisted.com website Kenneth Humphreys lists, creationist style, scholars (…including even himself!) who have "dared to question the story of Jesus" and "challenged the very existence of the godman". Some of those on this list can only charitably be called ‘scholars’ (Does Humphreys even speak Greek? That would seem a minimum requirement.), and of the remainder, many do not reject the historicity of Jesus at all! A few examples…
"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community." - Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pg 13
One wonders if Humphreys realizes that his reference suggests that he’s not a "sane person"!
"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." – from Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50
"When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses." – Albert Schweitzer
"In his latest works, Wells has somewhat moderated his views, allowing for the possibility that certain elements of the Gospel traditions might be based on a historical figure from the first-century Palestine. However, Wells insists that this line of first-century traditions is separate from the sacrificial Christ myth of Paul's epistles and other early documents, and that these two traditions have different origins. Wells concludes that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task." – from Wikipedia
"To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [See G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]" – from here.
And then there are the quacks. Kersey Graves’ ‘scholarship’ is so poor that Internet Infidels needs a disclaimer…
"…the scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book." – from here.
A criticism of Graves’ work by fellow mythicist Richard Carrier can be found here.
Regarding his intellectual heir, Acharya S…
"Robert Price, a professor of Theology and another proponent of the Christ-myth hypothesis, was at one time critical of Acharya's writing:
"Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations."
Acharya subsequently wrote a rebuttal to Price's review. Price has since retracted his attack on Acharya. On Sept. 1, 2006, Price and Acharya guested together on the Infidel Guy radio show and the two have plans for future works together. Price has also written a complimentary review of her recent ebook, a summary of the "life of Jesus" titled WHO WAS JESUS?" – from Wikipedia
"The claims of Acharya S have been criticized for a number of reasons. Her detractors say:
•Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims.
•Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point.
•The sources for her books, including The World's 16 Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves and Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets by Barbara Walker, are themselves of suspect authority and lacking in primary research.
Her work shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, and in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions." - from Wikipedia
Similar charges have been made against Freke and Gandy…
"According to some critics, Freke and Gandy make selective use of quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), use out of date scholarship, and are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda." – from Wikipedia
One of the more interesting characters on Humphreys’ list is Luigi Cascioli who gained notoriety recently by filing a lawsuit against the Catholic Church. Here’s an excerpt from that lawsuit…
"That the figure of Jesus has been fully constructed over a certain John of Gamala , son of Judas from Gamala, known as the Galilean, is irrefutably known by such a great number of proofs as to remove whatever doubts about the falsifications carried out by the compilers of the Gospels. It would suffice that concerning the transformation of the appellation Nazireo, as was usually called John of Gamala as inhabitant of Nazareth , to show in the most absolute manner the impersonation stated." – from here.
There’s just one little problem…
"John of Gamala is a fictional character who features in a nineteenth century novel called "For the Temple" by G. A. Henty. The book depicts him as a heroic figure who fought the Romans especially when they made plain their plans to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem (70 A.D.). Later in the novel he becomes a follower of Jesus. Henty states in the preface to the book that John of Gamala is his own creation." - from Wikipedia
According to Cascioli, the authors of the gospels, and just about everyone else, never referred to the Messiah as "Jesus" until around 180 CE! To be fair, Josephus mentions a John, except that his story postdates even Paul’s death…
"It was John, the son of a certain man whose name was Levi, that drew them into this rebellion, and encouraged them in it. He was a cunning knave, and of a temper that could put on various shapes; very rash in expecting great things, and very sagacious in bringing about what he hoped for. It was known to every body that he was fond of war, in order to thrust himself into authority; and the seditious part of the people of Gischala were under his management, by whose means the populace, who seemed ready to send ambassadors in order to a surrender, waited for the coming of the Romans in battle-array."
- from Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter 2. 1
I find Cascioli's views to be a little 'out there' but, hey maybe it's just me.
To summarize:
An historical Jesus doesn’t contradict atheism; Jesus was a human being, not a god. The near-unanimous scholarly opinion is that Jesus existed. Charges of bias against the academic community from amateur proponents of the Jesus-myth are unfounded, and part of a larger propagandistic agenda, similar in many respects to Creationism, and employing many of the same methods (including appealing to popular opinion, listing of sympathetic ‘scholars’, use of out of date, discredited sources, out of context quotes, selective evidence, and a willingness to include almost anyone who rejects Jesus’ historicity).
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #3
Where is your overwhelming evidence Jesus was a real man. I don't personally accept the Bible as a history book. It is a religious book promoting a mythical figure, whether that figure was based on a real person or not is neither here nor there.
Is the film Citizen Kane a historical documentary depicting a real person? No. Sure, it was probably based on a real person. And I can only say probably, and that after only 50 years or so since the movie was made.
I'm afraid the Bible is just too 'creative' for us to take it literally in any way. And outside sources are very very few. Almost nothing, in fact. You're left with Josephus etc and even then a few mentions of dubious authenticity.
Did King Arthur exist? Well, certainly not the Arthur of popular folklore. But, hey, there may have been an actual historical king or military leader who the story was built around - we will never know.
Same with Jesus.
Is the film Citizen Kane a historical documentary depicting a real person? No. Sure, it was probably based on a real person. And I can only say probably, and that after only 50 years or so since the movie was made.
I'm afraid the Bible is just too 'creative' for us to take it literally in any way. And outside sources are very very few. Almost nothing, in fact. You're left with Josephus etc and even then a few mentions of dubious authenticity.
Did King Arthur exist? Well, certainly not the Arthur of popular folklore. But, hey, there may have been an actual historical king or military leader who the story was built around - we will never know.
Same with Jesus.
Post #4
Lotan's OP has got to be one of the most detailed and well-researched on the entire forum. I must say I am impressed.
As far as the debate, I certainly agree with Lotan that the evidence that Jesus existed is rather overwhelming. I also can understand the distinction he makes between Jesus existing and Jesus accomplishing all the works that are described in the gospel's. Since this thread is not about debating the latter, I will leave it at that.
Having only read Part I, I am wondering what I will find in Parts II through XI or whatever the last part is. (More parts than Rocky, or Harry Potter, or even Left Behind I think!).
I am wondering if all these parts are really necessary, but will reserve judgment until I at least scan through them.
As far as the debate, I certainly agree with Lotan that the evidence that Jesus existed is rather overwhelming. I also can understand the distinction he makes between Jesus existing and Jesus accomplishing all the works that are described in the gospel's. Since this thread is not about debating the latter, I will leave it at that.
Having only read Part I, I am wondering what I will find in Parts II through XI or whatever the last part is. (More parts than Rocky, or Harry Potter, or even Left Behind I think!).
I am wondering if all these parts are really necessary, but will reserve judgment until I at least scan through them.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #5
Hi Mike,micatala wrote:I am wondering if all these parts are really necessary, but will reserve judgment until I at least scan through them.
Much of my post was intended to address some of the more common mythicist arguments and are necessary only for that purpose. If my purpose had been solely to establish Jesus' existence then only a few bits of data would really be necessary and my post could have been quite brief.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #6
Lothan, I commend you for your excellent post on this subject. I agree with micatala, one of the best put forward on the subject.Lothan wrote:
<--- lots of stuff --->
It's good to see reasonability and objectivity being displayed.
"He that but looketh on a plate of ham and eggs to lust after it hath
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
already committed breakfast with it in his heart" -- C.S. Lewis
