Unraveling the Jesus myth

[The Duke of Vandals]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

[The Duke of Vandals]

Wow, it's like a horribe mutant child of the argument for why the Earth is flat mated with the same logic UFO-ologists use to "evidence" flying saucers.

The UFO enthusiasts are never willing to address the very obvious explanation of people "seeing" UFO's wanting to get attention. In the case of the Jesus mythologists, they had the very obvious motivation of wanting to start a religion.

It looks like we're at an impass. I've explained very clearly why eyewitness testimony of supernatural / impossible events is utterly dismissable and you're rebuttals have, well... been to rehash lists of alleged eyewitnesses most of whom are either completely biased (in the case of the early Christians) or were working from accounts given to them by othes (such as Tacitus). How apologists can reference Tacitus as "evidence" of Jesus is really beyond me. He's simply the first in a long, long line of individuals to assume that because there are Christians there must have been a Christ.

You're going to have to start arguing honestly or introduce some new evidence (which we both know doesn't exist...)

[Lotan]

Well, that's a good question. Let's take a look at the evidence we have for Jesus' existence beyond the gospels and the early church fathers who clearly had a doctrinal axe to grind:

... and there you have it.

Oh, the 'argument from (alleged) silence'.
Forgive me Duke, but this really reminds me of a creationist's argument; you wave your hands and dismiss the evidence of the gospels and church fathers on the basis that they were biased, and at the same time simply ignore the evidence of Paul and Josephus because it doesn't fit your theory.

The ONLY place we hear about Jesus in any meaningful way is from either the gospels (which are fictional) and from early Christians (who wanted the myth to be true / were biased / had motivation to mythologize). There is no treasure trove of Jesus artifacts being analyzed by the church.

Definitely not true, especially when, for the sake of this argument "meaningful" can mean anything that points to Jesus' existence. First of all, claiming that Jesus never existed because the gospels are fiction is only begging the question. In order to make that claim, you will need to find an alternative explanation for each and every verse. Sure, a lot of it is invention "according to scripture" as Paul would say, but that doesn't mean that all of it is.
Secondly, there is Josephus. Sure the testimonium is bogus, but no one really knows if there was at least some mention of Jesus at the heart of it, and the authenticity of the account of James' death has not been discounted either. It may turn out that neither of them are valid, but to make the argument that they're not, based on the argument that Jesus didn't exist is circular.
And then there is Paul. Yes I know, Paul doesn't say much about Jesus' life, but he doesn't have to. He only has to say that the man Jesus lived, and he does. In Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, Donald Harman Akenson writes of the view that Paul knew nothing of Jesus' life...

"It is preposterous." p. 171

Don't just take his word for it, read the argument yourself, it's too long to copy here.
Paul had his reasons for not talking too much about the earthly Jesus (I suspect because it was boring) but for this argument that doesn't matter. What matters is that Paul admits to having persecuted the early church and to have met with James "the brother of the Lord" and Peter. Do you suppose that he was mistaken, or maybe a co-conspirator?

Add into this 1000 years or more where stating "Jesus never existed" was, at best, grounds for persecution and at worst an offense punishable by murder. Popular opinion is hard to overcome especially when millions of individuals take personal offense at the investigation.

This is irrelevant nonsense. Who cares about "popular opinion" or what happened for "1000 years or more"? Historical-critical methodology is only a couple of centuries old and has benefitted from advances in related fields such as cross-cultural anthropology and archaeology that were previously non-existent. If you think mainstream and liberal bible scholars are bowing to public pressure, you should read some of the things that evangelicals have to say about them. The inquisition has been over for a long time now!

Thus, most everyone works from the assumption that the Christan's godman existed.

There you go making that same unsupported assertion, AGAIN! Please name even one historian who hasn't given the question of Jesus' non-existence serious consideration. Michael Grant, who I quoted last time, devotes 8 pages of "An Historian's Review of the Gospels" to the question. Here is that previous quote in context...

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... 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.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." p. 200

Do you see? "It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars." and "abundant, evidence" means nobody's assuming anything, so unless you would like to provide some real evidence that they are, you can quit begging the question.

As for the rest of your post, you're not seeing the big picture.

Oh, I see quite well.
I see that you're not addressing the criteria that lead historians to believe that there is some truth underlying the gospel accounts.
I also see that you like to use arguments that are popular with fans of pseudoscience - "Those academics in their ivory towers are so blinded by their bias that they refuse to accept the truth!" That's so much easier than dealing with the evidence.

Let's steer away from Jesus for a moment and look at Alexander the great or other historical figures.

Spare me the 'Alexander analogy' stuff, please. It's not apt. The fact that we know anything about Jesus at all is an accident of history.

If the gospel claims had been true, we'd expect to see a LOT more writing and activity from Judea in the third and fourth centuries. Instead, we see nothing. There is a complete vacuum of information and actions. No one writing from that era has anything to say about this rock-star-level-famous godman.

Wow! It's like..."If evolution were true, we'd expect to see..."
I'm really not interested in arguments based on your speculations, thanks.
Who said the gospel claims were true? Who said Jesus was a "rock-star-level-famous godman"? Is this what you think historians are saying? First you condescendingly try to explain that STORY-EMBELLISHMENTS=MAN for Alexander, and then use a different equation for Jesus? Is it really necessary for him to have actually walked on water to conclude that the gospels were talking about someone?

Furthermore, the actual personhood of Jesus isn't at all agreed on by early Christians.

Jesus never existed? Freke and Gandy? You might try to find a more reputable source. At least Doherty is honest. The site says...

"The first Christian books, carbon dated to 50-150 AD – earlier than the synoptic gospels."

...but you'll have to forgive me if I need a little supporting evidence for that claim, especially when Elaine Pagels says...

"About the dating of the manuscripts themselves there is little debate. Examination of the datable papyrus used to thicken the leather bindings, and of the Coptic script, place them c. A.D. 350-400. But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. Some of them can hardly be later than c. A.D. 120-150, since Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing C. 180, declares that heretics "boast that they possess more gospels than there really are,'' and complains that in his time such writings already have won wide circulation--from Gaul through Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor."

This, I believe is the second biggest problem with the Christ-myth theory (the first being that it ignores evidence), that is, it is based on a premise for which there really is no evidence; that Christianity began as an invention. There is plenty of evidence for later embellishment, that's true enough, but there is absolutely nothing to support that initial invention, beyond conjecture. Who were the conspirators? James and Peter? Miriam? The Magdalene? Evidence please.
The later interpretations of the Gnostics, or the Pauline school, or of the derivative hellenistic evangelists is meaningless to the question of Jesus' existence. The interpretation of the first generation Jerusalem church that included Jesus' brother James, as well as Peter is not, and the evidence points to a very human Jesus at the heart of that interpretation, not a "rock-star-level-famous godman". If there ever was a conspiracy regarding the origin of Christianity, it would be the attempts of the later evangelists to suppress the role of the Jerusalem church and the very human nature of Jesus. There is evidence for that. Oh, but I forgot that for the Christ-myth theory Jesus was divine right from the get-go. Isn't that how the story is supposed to go?

Remember: no one is claiming there weren't Christians or STORIES of Jesus. The claim is that the gospel JEsus remains unevidenced.

Yes, and until you can refute the evidence instead of just dismissing it, it will remain just that, a claim.

[Metacrock]

Wow, it's like a horribe mutant child of the argument for why the Earth is flat mated with the same logic UFO-ologists use to "evidence" flying saucers.

The UFO enthusiasts are never willing to address the very obvious explanation of people "seeing" UFO's wanting to get attention. In the case of the Jesus mythologists, they had the very obvious motivation of wanting to start a religion.

It looks like we're at an impass. I've explained very clearly why eyewitness testimony of supernatural / impossible events is utterly dismissable and you're rebuttals have, well... been to rehash lists of alleged eyewitnesses most of whom are either completely biased (in the case of the early Christians) or were working from accounts given to them by othes (such as Tacitus). How apologists can reference Tacitus as "evidence" of Jesus is really beyond me. He's simply the first in a long, long line of individuals to assume that because there are Christians there must have been a Christ.

You're going to have to start arguing honestly or introduce some new evidence (which we both know doesn't exist...)

you are the one with no posative evidence for your position. I had many atheist porfessors in my Doctoral program who thought that Jesus mythers were in serious lack of mental ability. I don't mean to inslutl you, I'm not saying that is true. But these guys were atheists. they just weren't sufficently afaird of Christinatiy that they had clutch at straws to destory it.


you are the one who is dishonest. because yo ubase arguments on nothing on slience from your openents and total conjuection from filmsy scant passages in books you dont' undersatnd and they you have audacity to imply that my view is palced in with bigfoot and ufos. If anything yours is. my view is the majroity view. vast majority I"m talking total conesus almost all.

You cannot show me a single hsitorian who actually agree with the myther bs.

[Goat]

Secondly, there is Josephus. Sure the testimonium is bogus, but no one really knows if there was at least some mention of Jesus at the heart of it, and the authenticity of the account of James' death has not been discounted either. It may turn out that neither of them are valid, but to make the argument that they're not, based on the argument that Jesus didn't exist is circular.

However, you can make the arguement that it is likely to be a copiers gloss, since the phrase 'The one called Jesus' in Latin is an almost letter by letter equivalent to the Greek as found in a few of the Gospels.

In Jospehus, the phrase in Latin of the antiquities 20 is "on adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou" which means the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ,

Look at both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16. the term 'One called Christ' in those phrases is "ho legomenos Christos" (the greek instead of the latin).
This shows that phrase was used in Antiquites 18 is identical to a couple of phrases in the Gospels. If it is a copiers Gloss, and 'the one called the Christ" is removed, it would appear that James was the brother of Jesus, the high priest that is being talked about.

[Lotan]

However, you can make the arguement that it is likely to be a copiers gloss, since the phrase 'The one called Jesus' in Latin is an almost letter by letter equivalent to the Greek as found in a few of the Gospels.
In Jospehus, the phrase in Latin of the antiquities 20 is "on adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou" which means the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ,
Look at both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16. the term 'One called Christ' in those phrases is "ho legomenos Christos" (the greek instead of the latin).
This shows that phrase was used in Antiquites 18 is identical to a couple of phrases in the Gospels.

Hi goat,
Where's the fire? I understand what you're getting at, but "almost letter by letter equivalent" and "identical" are not the same thing.
Also, just how many ways are there to say "One called Christ" anyway? It doesn't strike me as such an amazing coincidence.

If it is a copiers Gloss, and 'the one called the Christ" is removed, it would appear that James was the brother of Jesus, the high priest that is being talked about.

Two "ifs" is at least one more than I'm usually comfortable with. On top of that, even if that were the case, I don't see why the insertion of "the one called the Christ" would necessarily result in an identification of James' brother with Jesus, the son of Damneus.
I'm not trying to argue that such an alteration could not have happened, or even that it would be extraordinary. It is quite possible, but I don't think it makes a very solid basis on which to build further theories.

[Goat]

However, you can make the arguement that it is likely to be a copiers gloss, since the phrase 'The one called Jesus' in Latin is an almost letter by letter equivalent to the Greek as found in a few of the Gospels.
In Jospehus, the phrase in Latin of the antiquities 20 is "on adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou" which means the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ,
Look at both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16. the term 'One called Christ' in those phrases is "ho legomenos Christos" (the greek instead of the latin).
This shows that phrase was used in Antiquites 18 is identical to a couple of phrases in the Gospels.

Hi goat,
Where's the fire? I understand what you're getting at, but "almost letter by letter equivalent" and "identical" are not the same thing.
Also, just how many ways are there to say "One called Christ" anyway? It doesn't strike me as such an amazing coincidence.

If it is a copiers Gloss, and 'the one called the Christ" is removed, it would appear that James was the brother of Jesus, the high priest that is being talked about.

Two "ifs" is at least one more than I'm usually comfortable with. On top of that, even if that were the case, I don't see why the insertion of "the one called the Christ" would necessarily result in an identification of James' brother with Jesus, the son of Damneus.
I'm not trying to argue that such an alteration could not have happened, or even that it would be extraordinary. It is quite possible, but I don't think it makes a very solid basis on which to build further theories.

No, but the phrase is small enough,and it is close enough that in my opinion, gives a doubt on the original phrase. That phrase is much more likely to be genuine that antiquites 18... I believe Orgien actually referenced it.

However, unless we can get a copy of antiquites that is from before the second century, it is doubtful we can ever know truely.

I would say that calling antiquites 18 a total insertion is much more reasonable, since Orgien did reference anitquites 18, yet did not reference that paragraph.

[The Duke of Vandals]

you are the one with no posative evidence for your position. I had many atheist porfessors in my Doctoral program who thought that Jesus mythers were in serious lack of mental ability. I don't mean to inslutl you, I'm not saying that is true. But these guys were atheists. they just weren't sufficently afaird of Christinatiy that they had clutch at straws to destory it.


you are the one who is dishonest. because yo ubase arguments on nothing on slience from your openents and total conjuection from filmsy scant passages in books you dont' undersatnd and they you have audacity to imply that my view is palced in with bigfoot and ufos. If anything yours is. my view is the majroity view. vast majority I"m talking total conesus almost all.

As you can see by my absence this week, I'm pressed for time, so I'll just color-code the fallacies you've presented in your argument.

Shifting the burden of proof.
Appeal to Authority
Ad hominem
Straw man
Poisining the well
Appeal to popular opinion

You cannot show me a single hsitorian who actually agree with the myther bs.

Actually, I was just thinking that you're completely unable to show me an historian who isn't horrifically biased towards Christianity or who hasn't simply assumed Jesus existed based on faulty "evidence" or fear of persecution (depending on how far back you go). Really, this is just a variation on the "No True Scottsman" fallacy.

[Lotan]

Actually, I was just thinking that you're completely unable to show me an historian who isn't horrifically biased towards Christianity or who hasn't simply assumed Jesus existed based on faulty "evidence" or fear of persecution (depending on how far back you go).

As weird as it feels for me to defend Metacrock, he has provided this evidence in posts 87 and 89. Not only has he listed scholars, but he has presented some of their arguments for accepting the existence of the historical Jesus. I have too. If you would really like to debate this subject honestly, you will at least address this evidence and not just dismiss it with an ad hominem argument against historical Jesus scholars in general. It is you that is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as any scholar who doesn't agree with you is, in your view, "horrifically biased towards Christianity" or just plain wrong. Why? Because they don't agree with you? Either provide solid evidence for your assertion that these scholars are biased or drop this line of argument.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Are you talking about...

.Paul
B.Clement of Rome
C.Philip of Hireopolis
D.Papias
E.Polycarp


Ancient Secular and Jewish Historians.

One of many pages discussing historians of the first two centuries, not Christian, who speak of Jesus.


A.Josephus (3 pages)
B.Tacitus
C-D. Thallus and Phelgon
E. Lucian
F-H. Suetonius, Galen, Celsus,
I.Talmud (2 pages)

???

Simply because someone living a long time ago happens to mention Jesus or Christians, doesn't mean we fall all over ourselves to give them the title of "source". Meta and other Christians seem to think that so-called "christ mythers" want to believe that no one was talking about Jesus and that anyone who mentions Christians automatically becomes "evidence". That's simply absurd.

Tacitus, for example, doesn't mention any of the Christian myth spinners nor does he mention Jesus in any meaningful way. He's simply one of the first people to assume (without evidence) since there are Christians there must have been a Christ... the first of MANY to make this assumption.

Like many Christians, Meta is using unsupported claims to prop up other supported claims. The argument has basically come down to:

Me: The Christian argument is mostly hear say.
Meta: Look at how much hear say I have!

He (Christians) need to work on WHY their sources are relevant.

People saying "I saw Jesus" 100+ years after the fact are no more relevant than people saying "I can see the Earth is flat".

[Goat]

Are you talking about...

.Paul
B.Clement of Rome
C.Philip of Hireopolis
D.Papias
E.Polycarp


Ancient Secular and Jewish Historians.

One of many pages discussing historians of the first two centuries, not Christian, who speak of Jesus.


A.Josephus (3 pages)
B.Tacitus
C-D. Thallus and Phelgon
E. Lucian
F-H. Suetonius, Galen, Celsus,
I.Talmud (2 pages)

???

Simply because someone living a long time ago happens to mention Jesus or Christians, doesn't mean we fall all over ourselves to give them the title of "source". Meta and other Christians seem to think that so-called "christ mythers" want to believe that no one was talking about Jesus and that anyone who mentions Christians automatically becomes "evidence". That's simply absurd.

Tacitus, for example, doesn't mention any of the Christian myth spinners nor does he mention Jesus in any meaningful way. He's simply one of the first people to assume (without evidence) since there are Christians there must have been a Christ... the first of MANY to make this assumption.

Like many Christians, Meta is using unsupported claims to prop up other supported claims. The argument has basically come down to:

Me: The Christian argument is mostly hear say.
Meta: Look at how much hear say I have!

He (Christians) need to work on WHY their sources are relevant.

People saying "I saw Jesus" 100+ years after the fact are no more relevant than people saying "I can see the Earth is flat".

I will also point out that the Jospheus paragraph is likely to be a total forgery, even if the faithful do accept it.