Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed

with 2 comments

Very interesting post at AlterNet by Valerie Tarico:

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”  In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes [3] that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized [4].

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth.  Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot, by Reza Aslan and  How Jesus Became God, by Bart Ehrman [5]

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

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position.  Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All [6].For centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie [7] introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses [8] the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast,writes [9] from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest debunkers of fringe Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who tries to argue that the Romans invented Jesus) are from serious Mythicists like Fitzgerald, Carrier and Price.

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

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.  In the words of [10] Bart Ehrman: “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

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

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests [11] that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded.  “Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.”

3. . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

27 August 2014 at 12:02 pm

Posted in Books, Religion

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. At least your agenda is clear. Mistaken, prevaricative and exaggerated, but clear…

    Simon

    28 August 2014 at 6:16 am

  2. My agenda has, I think, always been clear: I like to understand things and to learn what the world is like and what causes it. That’s my agenda. What is yours?

    BTW, given my agenda of getting a correct understanding of things, I would very much appreciate learning of any errors in what I post. It seems that you probably spotted some errors in the above—or perhaps in the referenced book—and if so, please do point out the errors. (I did get the book, and it makes some interesting points about the purely historical issues that it discusses.

    To take a single passage from the book:

    Luke (2:1-4) claims Jesus was born in the year of a universal tax census under Augustus Caesar, while Cyrenius (a.k.a. Quirinius) was governor of Syria. To start with, Luke’s census is rather suspiciously convenient and looks more like a clever plot device than a genuine historical fact. And actually, it creates more problems than it solves: why don’t Mathew, Mark and John – or anyone else – know about this census?

    What’s more, Matthew’s nativity story rules out Luke’s completely: since Cyrenius’ reign started 10 years after Herod’s death, the two nativity dates are irreconcilable (not that there haven’t been many creative attempts to fix the problem). And even if Joseph had actually been required to go from Nazareth to Bethlehem, it makes no sense that he would also drag along his 9-months-pregnant wife. The trip was about 70 miles, a dangerous and exhausting five-day journey on donkey-back – even if you weren’t a woman about to give birth. But the fact that settles the matter is that Roman records show the first such universal census didn’t occur until decades after this, during the reign of the emperor Vespasian in 74 C.E.

    That seems pretty straightforward and agenda-free to me, simply pointing out problems in the text. Are you of the view that the text is free of problems? (And, BTW, many scholars have pointed out that such a massive movement of people in the Roman Empire, everyone traveling back to the city of his or her birth for a census, would surely have been mentioned in many places. It wasn’t.

    LeisureGuy

    28 August 2014 at 7:37 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.