Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

Consider anything I've said in this or the linked thread to be my answer to that question.

No, because your argument is just like every other mystic argument. Making the same mistakes as every other mystic argument.

Mistake number 1

The earliest source about Jesus we have is Paul, and I'll be considering the seven epistles that are least-contested as genuine. Dates are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Fifth Edition:

"The two most important points are that Mark and Matthew should be dated long before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, that Mark is full of Semitisms which indicate his use of Aramaic sources, and both Matthew and Luke include some such passages too. Mythicists ignore both points: they do not learn Aramaic, so that they cannot see the evidence of the use of Aramaic sources, and they do not read the major works of secondary literature. For example, in a perfectly plausible narrative in which Jesus healed a sick woman whom some people imagined was dead, he said Talitha qum, ‘girl get up’, using the form of qum which is not gender-specific, as was reasonable in Galilee at the time. Again, at Mk 14.25, the most difficult and therefore most certain reading has Jesus say ‘we shall not add to drink’, a natural Aramaic idiom for ‘we shall not drink again’. The main point is that there are masses of such examples, properly documented from primary sources in learned secondary literature, and that mythicists require us to ignore them all, because they do not fit in with their fantasy world.
Casey, Maurice. Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/li ... ID=5309553.
Created from liberty on 2025-09-10 14:40:27."

Mistake number 2

For Paul, Jesus is essentially unimportant before his resurrection. There are a few references to Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being:

"There is a widespread assumption that the epistles of Paul and others are somehow really sources for Jesus, and would therefore have been sources for the historical Jesus if he had existed, from which mythicists conclude that he did not exist. I argued that this is completely wrong from beginning to end. For example, Paul, the most important writer of epistles, wrote to churches where he had converted people to his view that Gentiles did not need to undertake circumcision and other works of the Jewish Law to be saved. For this purpose, he did not need to refer to the teaching of Jesus, for this did not mention this matter. He referred to the teaching of Jesus only when he needed to do so. He therefore refers repeatedly to the death and Resurrection of Jesus, which were fundamental to his conviction that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law to be saved. Mythicists have, however, invented all kinds of spurious reasons for imagining that Paul did not really write such passages. None of their arguments should be accepted, and they frequently manifest another major fault of the arguments of mythicists, namely dependence on pseudo-scholarship which was incompetent when it was written, and is now hopelessly out of date.
Casey, Maurice. Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/li ... ID=5309553.
Created from liberty on 2025-09-10 14:46:06."

[Difflugia]

Consider anything I've said in this or the linked thread to be my answer to that question.

No

No? I've made my initial arguments. If you want to engage with those, feel free, but just telling me to make more arguments without addressing any yourself isn't much of a debate strategy.

because your argument is just like every other mystic argument. Making the same mistakes as every other mystic argument.

This should be entertaining.

Mistake number 1

The earliest source about Jesus we have is Paul, and I'll be considering the seven epistles that are least-contested as genuine. Dates are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Fifth Edition:

"The two most important points are that Mark and Matthew should be dated long before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE"

Your first mistake is relying on Maurice Casey. He was rabidly anti-mythicist, but he had enough non-consensus views about the New Testament that you'll likley spend more effort defending Casey's views than you'll gain from quoting them.

Casey writes this in Jesus of Nazareth, p. 78:

Mark’s Gospel was written by an unknown Christian called Marcus. He wrote in Greek for Greek- speaking churches c.40 CE

p. 86:

The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated c.75–85 ce, and its author is considered to be unknown. I propose that it should be dated much earlier than this, c.50–60 ce, and that its author was an unknown Jewish Christian, who may or may not have been called Mattai or the like.

This is, to put it mildly, a bit outside the consensus. Most modern scholars date Mark to either just before or just after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and Matthew definitively after AD 70. Since you're using this claim as evidence of my "mistake," you'll have to explain why you think Casey's right. Otherwise, since I'm accepting the scholarship dates, you're in the position of arguing that my claim fails exactly because I agree with most scholars on this particular point.

Mark is full of Semitisms which indicate his use of Aramaic sources, and both Matthew and Luke include some such passages too. Mythicists ignore both points: they do not learn Aramaic, so that they cannot see the evidence of the use of Aramaic sources, and they do not read the major works of secondary literature."

One of Casey's main areas of research is that Mark made use of Aramaic sources for the sayings of Jesus, so it fits that he'd try to somehow make that an important argument. We know that there was a Jerusalem church of some sort (Galatians 1:18) that was Jewish as contrasted with Paul's Gentile churches, so it would be plausible that some traditions, like sayings of Jesus, may have been transmitted in Aramaic. That still doesn't bridge the gap from a Jerusalem church to an earthly Jesus, though.

Even in a mythicist view, early Christians thought Jesus was real, just like modern Christians do; they just thought he was somewhere heavenly, just like modern Christians do.

Mistake number 2

For Paul, Jesus is essentially unimportant before his resurrection. There are a few references to Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being:

"There is a widespread assumption that the epistles of Paul and others are somehow really sources for Jesus, and would therefore have been sources for the historical Jesus if he had existed, from which mythicists conclude that he did not exist."

That's just Casey saying that we shouldn't expect the evidence we don't have. So, this actually agrees with the part of my claim that you quoted. I would also agree that it's not enough on which to draw a conclusion, which is why there's a second part to my claim that you omitted: the way Paul's Jesus interacted with apostles is completely different than the way the Jesus of the Gospels interacted with the apostles. Apologists sometimes argue that Paul didn't mention Jesus speaking to James, John, and Kephas while alive because Paul was embarrassed by that, but Paul didn't seem to have problems mentioning other embarrassing things in order to disarm them. If "apostle" also meant people that walked with Jesus during an earthly ministry, then 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 would have been the perfect time to mention that. There, he's bragging about how relatively small he is in order to put the focus on his own ministry. That reads to me as Christianity beginning when the risen Christ began appearing to apostles. He's not making a Jewish/Gentile distinction here, as Casey would have us believe, but that Jesus called all of the apostles the same way: by appearing to them after his resurrection.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #112]

This is, to put it mildly, a bit outside the consensus. Most modern scholars date Mark to either just before or just after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and Matthew definitively after AD 70. Since you're using this claim as evidence of my "mistake," you'll have to explain why you think Casey's right. Otherwise, since I'm accepting the scholarship dates, you're in the position of arguing that my claim fails exactly because I agree with most scholars on this particular point.

I am aware of what modern theologians believe. Now you care what the modern consensus is? If you care what the modern consensus is, then this discussion is over before it is even started. Modern consensus says that Jesus existed.

One of Casey's main areas of research is that Mark made use of Aramaic sources for the sayings of Jesus, so it fits that he'd try to somehow make that an important argument. We know that there was a Jerusalem church of some sort (Galatians 1:18) that was Jewish as contrasted with Paul's Gentile churches, so it would be plausible that some traditions, like sayings of Jesus, may have been transmitted in Aramaic. That still doesn't bridge the gap from a Jerusalem church to an earthly Jesus, though.

Not that it really matters, but you did not address Casey's argument at all. I am catching a trend here. His argument dealt with language being a living thing and how the gospels can be dated by the use of popular phrases at the time. Oh, sorry, I forgot that Casey's argument doesn't align with modern consensus. But neither does the belief that Jesus is a myth.

Even in a mythicist view, early Christians thought Jesus was real, just like modern Christians do; they just thought he was somewhere heavenly, just like modern Christians do.

Oh my, I burst out laughing at this one. In other words, there is sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was a historical figure. I believe you need to reevaluate who is making things up.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #112]

That's just Casey saying that we shouldn't expect the evidence we don't have. So, this actually agrees with the part of my claim that you quoted. I would also agree that it's not enough on which to draw a conclusion, which is why there's a second part to my claim that you omitted: the way Paul's Jesus interacted with apostles is completely different than the way the Jesus of the Gospels interacted with the apostles. Apologists sometimes argue that Paul didn't mention Jesus speaking to James, John, and Kephas while alive because Paul was embarrassed by that, but Paul didn't seem to have problems mentioning other embarrassing things in order to disarm them. If "apostle" also meant people that walked with Jesus during an earthly ministry, then 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 would have been the perfect time to mention that. There, he's bragging about how relatively small he is in order to put the focus on his own ministry. That reads to me as Christianity beginning when the risen Christ began appearing to apostles. He's not making a Jewish/Gentile distinction here, as Casey would have us believe, but that Jesus called all of the apostles the same way: by appearing to them after his resurrection.

I have given the gospel many times, and I have never mentioned any of the apostles. The gospel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Paul was an evangelist; there was no need for him to talk about the apostles. Paul was addressing heresy to that gospel message in his letters. That is Casey's argument.

But you have a good story.

[Difflugia]

Modern consensus says that Jesus existed.

Yes, we know that, which means that this discussion is about why the mythicist view differs from the consensus. Your evidence that the mythicist view is wrong and the consensus is right was to post a quote by a scholar that differs from both the consensus and the mythicist argument. It's a non sequitur.

Not that it really matters,

I agree.

but you did not address Casey's argument at all.

I addressed what you quoted.

I am catching a trend here. His argument dealt with language being a living thing and how the gospels can be dated by the use of popular phrases at the time.

If Casey's (and apparently your) argument is that the mythicist claim is wrong because the Gospels are incorrectly dated, then that's not an argument against mythicism per se and is a different topic.

As a heads-up, I'm familiar with Casey's work. I own and have read four of his books:

• Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel
• An Aramaic Approach to Q
• The Solution to the Son of Man Problem
• Jesus of Nazareth

I became interested in Casey because his work impacts Aramaic primacy, which is another topic that I've spent some time on. I don't have his book about mythicism, but I nonetheless feel pretty qualified to discuss Casey's arguments. If that's what you want to do, I'm up for it, but if you were hoping to pick someone obscure enough that I won't call your bluffs, you may want to look for a different scholar.

Even in a mythicist view, early Christians thought Jesus was real, just like modern Christians do; they just thought he was somewhere heavenly, just like modern Christians do.

Oh my, I burst out laughing at this one.

Are you familiar with the Tao Te Ching? Just curious.

In other words, there is sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was a historical figure.

Then present it. That evidence itself is what this discussion is about. I've tried to offer some points where I differ with scholars or think that they're misinterpreting the data, but if you think that something I haven't addressed is an absolute nail in the mythicist coffin, then offer it to us.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt for trying to engage, but I already know that scholars would disagree with me. If you want to advance a discussion, then at least briefly explain how and why any quotes you choose actually affect my claims.

I believe you need to reevaluate who is making things up.

I'm also willing to reevaluate your desire to honestly engage with the topic. My patience isn't infinite, though. If you want to discuss specific points I've made, I'm here for it. If there are specific features about the New Testament or history of the Church that you think are smoking gun evidence of a real Jesus, I'm here for that, too. What I'm not here for, at least at the moment, is to write a monograph about why I don't think Jesus was a real guy. I'm also not going to address an unending list of arguments from authority. It's a fine line in a topic like this, but "Maurice Casey thinks you're wrong, so there," is qualitatively different than "this claim by Maurice Casey seems to wreck a claim you've made and here's why." Meet me half way.

Here's a list of specific comments where I've made and addressed mythicist claims so you don't have to hunt for them. I've tried to omit ones that I feel are just me re-explaining points already made:

• These are all from the same thread on the historicity of Jesus:
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042266#p1042266
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042419#p1042419
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042446#p1042446
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042464#p1042464
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042599#p1042599
  • viewtopic.php?p=1042957#p1042957
  • viewtopic.php?p=1044674#p1044674
  • viewtopic.php?p=1044709#p1044709
  • viewtopic.php?p=1044860#p1044860
  • viewtopic.php?p=1045880#p1045880
  • viewtopic.php?p=1046153#p1046153
• I dug up a few more random ones that expressed something not in the other thread:
  • viewtopic.php?p=1097089#p1097089
  • viewtopic.php?p=1088588#p1088588
  • viewtopic.php?p=987239#p987239

Once again, everybody here knows that scholars disagree with things I've said, so quotes expressing mere disagreement will be unsurprising and of little value. If you want to present a quote as an argument, it should explain why a particular claim of mine is wrong. I'll also expect you to be willing to defend any quotes you use.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #115]

I'm also willing to reevaluate your desire to honestly engage with the topic. My patience isn't infinite, though. If you want to discuss specific points I've made, I'm here for it. If there are specific features about the New Testament or history of the Church that you think are smoking gun evidence of a real Jesus, I'm here for that, too. What I'm not here for, at least at the moment, is to write a monograph about why I don't think Jesus was a real guy. I'm also not going to address an unending list of arguments from authority. It's a fine line in a topic like this, but "Maurice Casey thinks you're wrong, so there," is qualitatively different than "this claim by Maurice Casey seems to wreck a claim you've made and here's why." Meet me half way.

Then just address Casey's argument.

"I have given the gospel many times, and I have never mentioned any of the apostles when giving the gospel message. The gospel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Paul was an evangelist; therefore, there was no need for him to discuss the apostles. Paul addressed heresy regarding the gospel message in his letters. That is Casey's argument."

Your argument is predicated on Paul not mentioning the disciples or the earthly life of Christ. Neither is part of the gospel message. Some may want to say that Jesus was sinless, but it is not needed because Jesus' being raised shows that He was God. Therefore, the gospel message is simply that Jesus died and was raised on the third day for the forgiveness of our sins.

1 Corinthians 15:3–4: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures".

[Haven]

I don’t have much to add here, even though I’ve been following this.

I guess my overall point is that if Jesus was not purely myth (that is, if he was based on some real person), who cares? How does that make the supernatural claims (the real things Christians have to defend) more likely?

To use an example from another religion: Swaminarayan was a Hindu priest who many in Gujarat believe to be God, or an incarnation of God. We know he was a real person; he died in the 19th century. We have writings from when he was alive and works directly by him that are verifiable.

These works contain supernatural claims that paint Swaminarayan as this divine being. He also instituted religious reforms that emphasized compassion over the law. Sound familiar?

Would any Christian here conclude this means Swaminarayan is God? Would any atheist be convinced that his devotees’ claims are true because he was a real person with recent writings about him?

Even if we concede everything that EarthScienceGuy is claiming, it still wouldn’t be evidence for Christianity. Jesus himself (or one of his direct followers) could have written supernatural stories about him while he was preaching, it still wouldn’t be evidence for the claims of the religion.

And considering the textual evidence of redaction in the Bible (which is evident with pseudo-Paul, the Pentateuch, among elsewhere) and the demonstrably false claims the Bible makes (the nonexistent census in Luke, the Exodus for which there is no physical evidence), the idea that this is some kind of perfect record falls apart.

[POI]

I don’t have much to add here, even though I’ve been following this.

I guess my overall point is that if Jesus was not purely myth (that is, if he was based on some real person), who cares? How does that make the supernatural claims (the real things Christians have to defend) more likely?

Agreed. Which is why I stated the following in the OP:

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

[Difflugia]

Then just address Casey's argument.

"I have given the gospel many times, and I have never mentioned any of the apostles when giving the gospel message.

Nor the earthly life of Jesus, I presume?

The gospel is about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. Paul was an evangelist; therefore, there was no need for him to discuss the apostles. Paul addressed heresy regarding the gospel message in his letters. That is Casey's argument."

If that's really Casey's argument, then it doesn't apply to anything I said. Paul did discuss the aposles. To Paul, an apostle meant something completely different than it did to the later evangelists.

What Paul didn't do is discuss the relationship that the living Jesus had with anyone, apostle or otherwise.

Your argument is predicated on Paul not mentioning the disciples

No.

or the earthly life of Christ.

Yes.

Neither is part of the gospel message.

The earthly life of Jesus isn't part of Paul's gospel, but it's 15/16 of what Mark calls "the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Some may want to say that Jesus was sinless, but it is not needed because Jesus' being raised shows that He was God.

I don't know what you think this has to do with anything, but Mark doesn't say that Jesus was sinless; he was baptized for the remission of his sins in verse 1:9. Matthew's the one that changed Jesus to being sinless (Matthew 3:14-15).

Therefore, the gospel message is simply that Jesus died and was raised on the third day for the forgiveness of our sins.

If that were all that Mark and Paul said, then you might have something, but harmonizing what little you can and ignoring the rest is how we got here in the first place. Paul goes on at length about other details of his relationships and friction with James, John, and Kephas, so your contention that he limited himself to just your version of the gospel message rings a bit hollow.

1 Corinthians 15:3–4: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures".

You stopped too soon. Let's continue at verse 5.

and that he appeared to Kephas, then to the twelve, then he appeared to over five hundred brethren at once, of whom most remain until now, but some are fallen asleep, then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles, and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

Who are the apostles, if not Peter, James, the twelve, and Paul?

Your argument doesn't address either salient point:

• Paul doesn't talk about the living Jesus when discussing the relationship of Christ to personalities of the church
• Paul does talk about the Church and its members in ways that completely defy the canonical Gospels and Acts.

What's even more damning is that according to Mark's Gospel, the twelve apostles never even received the news of Christ's resurrection after the crucifixion. The women "said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Casey recognizes this problem and dismisses it by claiming that Mark just wasn't finished. From Jesus of Nazareth, p. 76:

It is in this light [that Mark is uinfinished] that we should consider the ending. Mark has Jesus tell his followers, after the Last Supper, that after his Resurrection, ‘I will go before you into Galilee’ (Mk 14.28). Later, the angel in the empty tomb tells the three women to tell his disciples and Peter, ‘he is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.’ Instead of recounting this, however, Mark concludes,

And going out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement held them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mk 16.8)

In the ancient world, this satisfied no one. Matthew and Luke replaced it with their own endings. Ancient copyists of Mark added two different endings, known as the Shorter Ending and the Longer Ending, which is found in the majority of manuscripts. This shows how widespread was the feeling in the ancient churches that Mark needed a proper ending.

What's interesting about this is that as it originally stood, the story of Mark matches Paul's conception of the Church and its gospel; the women didn't have to tell anyone about the resurrection because the risen Christ told the apostles themselves in visions. Matthew, Luke, and Maurice Casey knew that this is implausible as history, so each felt it necessary to change Mark. Matthew and Luke added a new ending, while Casey just imagines that Mark would have added his own in a later draft. If we read Paul and Mark as they are, though, we can see the gospel as Paul did: delivered to Paul and "the apostles that went before me" by Christ alone. To see it otherwise requires changes to both, even if you pretend they've always been that way.

[Difflugia]

I guess my overall point is that if Jesus was not purely myth (that is, if he was based on some real person), who cares? How does that make the supernatural claims (the real things Christians have to defend) more likely?

The super short answer is that in response to gnosticism allegorization of everything, the proto-orthodox churches felt the need to declare doctrinally that the Gospels were literal, historical truth.

Consider that creeds were used to distinguish groups from one another. Read the fourth-century Nicene Creed and realize that at that time, each line was meant to exclude Christians that believed otherwise.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

So at some point, the proto-orthodox wanted to exclude Christians that thought that Christ didn't descend from heaven, was made instead of born, wasn't born of a virgin, wasn't crucified under Pilate, didn't die, wasn't buried, wasn't raised on the third day, didn't ascend to the Father, or wouldn't come again. In the end, the reason it's important that Jesus was real (to believers, not historians) is because somebody troublesome believed differently during the third century or so.