Jesus-Mythos

The narrative of Jesus in the gospels considered as part of Christian mythology, shows parallels to Hellenistic mystery religions such as Mithraism, and the mytheme of rebirth deities.

Study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position about the historicity of Jesus.

History of the theories

The term Jesus as myth covers a broad range of ideas, but most share the common premise that the narrative of the Gospels portrays a figure who never actually lived.Vorlage:Fact Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as Max Müller and James Frazer. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a dying and reviving god and its connection to the regeneration of the earth in springtime.The Later works by George Albert Wells drew on the Pauline Epistles and the lack of early non-Christian documents to argue that the Jesus figure of the Gospels was symbolic not historical. Earl Doherty proposed that Jewish mysticism influenced the development of a Christ myth, while John M. Allegro proposed that Christianity began as shamanic religion based on the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms. Most recently Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy have popularized the Jesus-Myth concept int their book The Jesus Mysteries.

Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea itself is as old as the New Testament as the Second Epistle of John warns of "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This view was shared by Marcion (110-160 A.D.), who compiled the first version of the New Testament as early as 144 A.D., and whose followers, the Marcionites, continued until the 4th Century.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, in 115 A.D. in the "Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, near Zarbus," urged her: "Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His birth according to the flesh; and there are many at present who suffer under this disease." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in chapter 7 says: "For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist," apparently quoting 1 John 4:3.

Proponents argue that, had Jesus been a true historical figure, there would not have been such a large number of prominent people who denied his existence, or an even larger number who defended him. Such controversies never developed over other contemporary religious figures (e.g., John the Baptist, Paul, James the Just, Hillel, Honi the Circledrawer). Scholars of the period, however, believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, the belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

Early proponents

The first scholarly proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. Bauer's arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under Dutch Bible scholars such as A. D. Loman and G. I. P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity evolved from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory, ranging from the highly speculative to the more scholarly. In Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell stated that even if Jesus existed, which he doubted, the public does not "know anything" about him. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which brought together the scholarship of the day in defence of the idea that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.

While aspects of the theory were influential, most mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion that "Jesus" was little more than a fiction, arguing that the Gospels, Pauline epistles and Acts of the Apostles contained some reliable information about the events they describe. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.

Recent scholarship

In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth), as well as by Timothy Freke, philosopher and expert on mysticism, and Peter Gandy, a scholar of mystery religions (co-authors of The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess), and the noted humanist Earl Doherty (author of The Jesus Puzzle), a scholar of ancient history and classical languages.

There are many different views regarding the nature of the early texts. Earl Doherty argues that Jesus is a historicized mythic figure created out of the Old Testament, whom the early Christians experienced in visions, as Paul says he did. Joseph Atwill, on the other hand, argues that Jesus is the deliberate and malefic creation of powerful Romans of the family of Vespasian, who sought to divide and destroy Judaism. Hence in Atwill's version, there really is a historical Jesus, but he is Vespasian's son Titus, and the gospels are a complex allegory of his conquest of Judea.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory do not agree on the dating and meaning of the early Christian texts, with recent advocates like Doherty holding to traditional scholarly dating that puts the gospels toward the end of the first century, and others, like Hermann Detering (The Fabricated Paul), arguing that the early Christian texts are largely forgeries and products of the mid and late second century.

Presently, most New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity. Nevertheless, Earl Doherty has infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour with his website and publication of his book, The Jesus Puzzle. Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favourable reviews by skeptics Dr. Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier [3].

Many other scholars also take this position, although it is a minority position among New Testament scholars. This list includes but is not limited to biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson, Theologian and Anglican priest Tom Harpur, Biblical scholar and historian Randel Helms, Biblical Scholar Robert J. Miller, Biblical Scholar and Professor Jeffery Lowder, Historian J.K. Elliot, Scholar Gordon S. Stein, Historian and biblical scholar Elaine Pagels among others.Vorlage:Fact

Specific arguments of the theory

Early non-Christian references to Jesus

Central to many of the mythical theories is the fact that there are no known documents, other than Christian documents, that make reference to Jesus until the end of the first century, when Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews, and the authenticity of that account is subject to controversy. Proponents of these theories note the survival of writings by a number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians who wrote in the first century and the lack of mention of events described in the Gospels. The lack of evidence is, to these proponents, an argument from silence: the silence is evidence that Jesus was a later invention.

To critics of the Jesus as myth theory, the silence is explained by the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time, as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews, and the typical lack of first-hand evidence for other historical figures whose existence are not questioned (see Historicity of Jesus). Advocates of the Jesus as myth theory respond by noting that the Gospels describe a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and challenging the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody.

They also point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament and its Apocrypha). Of the few references outside of Christian documents, almost all mention the existence of Christians and their belief (implying there was a Jesus), although not directly mentioning Jesus. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), whose Antiquities, written in 93 CE (more than two generations after most Christian scholars date the crucifixion), contain two references to a Jesus. One of these states that he was the founder of a sect.

The first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, contains content that affirms core religious tenets of Christianity rejected by Judaism and thus is most uncharacteristic of a lifelong Jew such as Josephus. It is not mentioned by second-century Christian authors, though several scholars have proposed that when stripped of the implausible Christian phrases, the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable.[4]

The second reference is also disputed. This merely mentions that a person named Jesus was the brother of a person named James who is traditionally identified as James the Just. [5] However, it is mostly — though not universally — regarded as significantly more likely to be authentic than the Testamonium[6]. Nevertheless, the Hebrew form of Jesus, a colloquial form of the name Joshua, was a particularly common name at the time, and the second reference provides only Jesus's name, identification as the Christ ("Messiah" or "anointed one"), and relationship to James.

Notable omissions in extant contemporary records

It is often argued that no mention of Jesus or the events of the New Testament can be found in any of the numerous contemporary and near-contemporary records of the day, and that this serves as evidence against the existence of the Jesus of the gospels.

Philo (20 BCE - 40 CE)

By far, the most notable omission is Philo's. Philo was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the Logos, the "Word" that opens the Gospel of John. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of Pontius Pilate's reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor Caligula.

Plutarch (ca. 46 - 127)

Plutarch wrote, about the same time as Josephus, about contemporary Roman figures, oracles, prophesies, and moral, religious, and spiritual issues. A figure such as Jesus, whom the Gospels portray as interacting with Roman figures, making prophecies, and giving sermons on novel religious and spiritual issues, would have been of great interest to him.

Justus

Justus of Tiberias wrote, at the end of the first century, a history of Jewish kings (who the gospels state Jesus had interactions with). Justus' history does not survive, but Photius, who read it in the 9th century, stated that it did not mention "the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him".

Josephus (ca. 37 - ca. 100)

For those who reject the authenticity of both the Testamonium Flavanium and the xx.9 reference to James, Josephus would belong on this list. Naturally, those who accept the authenticity of one or the other, in whole or in part, see Josephus as providing evidence for an historical Jesus and thus would object to Josephus's inclusion. As the only first-century non-Christian to perhaps write of Jesus, the two brief mentions to be found in Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 94) are the subject of often-heated debate.

Others

There are a number of other sources that survive from the period in which it would be reasonable to find mention of Jesus, though in no particular case would one be surprised to find mention of Jesus lacking.

These include: Pliny the Elder, who wrote, in 80 CE, a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Persius, Roman satirists who favored topics similar to Jesus's story;Vorlage:Fact Pausanias, whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine; Epictetus and Aelius Aristides, who both recorded events and people in Palestine;Vorlage:Fact and the letters of Fronto (who is known to have delivered a speech attacking Christian rituals).

Other writers and historians of the time who did not mention Jesus include Dio Chrysostom, Aulus Gellius, Lucius Apuleius, Marcus Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Cassius Maximus Tyrius, Arrian, Appian, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Lucius Annaeus Florus, and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus.

Paul's presentation of Jesus

Several of the epistles of Paul are regarded as not authentic by a majority of Scholars, the Pastoral Epistles being singled out by over two thirds as least likely to be genuine. When the authorship of the Pauline epistles is considered, the epistles can be split into two groups — the seven considered by almost everyone to be genuine, against the rest. In this division, the theology of the disputed group seems, in the eyes of a majority of scholars, to be quite distinct from the theology of the seven undisputed letters. For some writers, it is almost as if the disputed group were written specifically to counter the group thought to be genuine.Vorlage:Fact

Although there are occasional references in the disputed group to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, the undisputed group contains limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure. Even though Paul's letters are widely regarded as the earliest Christian documents, they contain very few references to Jesus' actual life and ministry, which the later Gospels detail. Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory claim that Paul's letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus, and so the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul's correspondence is sufficient explanation for the lack of detail of Jesus' life. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory note an abundance of missed rhetorical opportunities to reinforce Paul's points by quoting Jesus or citing well-known events in his life that were directly relevant to the topics he was discussing.

Several commentators, from writers whose theories have not received widespread acceptance, such as Earl Doherty, to widely respected academics and experts in the field, such as Harvard professor Elaine Pagels, have argued that Paul's writing should be interpreted as gnosticism. Christianity arose under a heavy Hellenic culture, Paul himself growing up in Tarsus, the centre of one of the major mystery religions of the time, and Pagels and Doherty (and others) believe that Paul's writing should be viewed in the context of the Hellenic culture that formed his background.

Gnosticism, a diverse religion some of whose branches used some Christian names and ideas, and which flourished and subsequently died out in the first through fourth centuries, frequently used allegory and metaphor to guide its initiates towards salvation, which Gnosticism viewed as a form of knowledge (gnosis). Many Gnostic groups even regarded Jesus himself as an allegory, rather than historical, and docetism was rife in Gnostic groups. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe that many parts of the New Testament were written as Gnostic documents, and that Paul's writing is a prominent example of Gnosticism in the New Testament[7]. Accordingly, in this interpretation, those references in the undisputed epistles that appear to refer to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should instead be regarded as allegorical metaphors [8]. These interpretations, of for example Galatians 1:19, 3:16, 4:4, Romans 1:3, 3:1, 15:8, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, 15:4, are regarded by opponents of the Jesus Myth theory as based on forced and erroneous translations [9].

The influence of the Old Testament

According to a majority of scholars, the synoptic problem - the strong similarities between three of the gospels, is most accurately resolved by the two-source hypothesis, according to which most of the content of Matthew and Luke were copied wholesale from the Gospel of Mark and a lost collection of quotations known as the Q document, with which the Gospel of Thomas is the most similar document of the era. In the small amount of additional material unique to Matthew, amongst the three, Jesus is presented in a way that has strong parallels with significant Old Testament figures, most noticeably Moses, whose birth narrative, and sojourn in the wilderness, Matthew appears to have used as the basis of that of Jesus.

It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. In particular, many quotations attributed to the Q document, which the Gospels attribute to Jesus, find parallels in several places of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Jesus Myth believe that the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, there is no reason to assume that the sayings attributed to Q, a document theoretically devoid of narrative, originated with Jesus, rather than just being a collection of wisdom from several independent sources, such as the Old Testament. As such, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory claim that when the midrashic elements are removed, little to no content remains that could be used to demonstrate the existence of an historical Jesus [10].

Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, proponents of Jesus' existence believe they contain sufficient historical information to establish his historicity.

Although there are many types of midrash, the Toledot Yeshu jumps out as being the most similar to the proposal that characters and situations were invented wholesale according to religious dogma and Old Testament prophecy. However, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that the closest parallels to potential Moses-based embellishment of the Jesus narrative, are inapplicable. Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Old Testament influence, but nevertheless provided some historical accounts [11]; for example, in 1 Maccabees, Judas and his battles are described in terms which parallel those of Saul's and David's battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel, but nevertheless 1 Maccabees has a degree of respect amongst historians as having a reasonable degree of historical reliability (John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, p. 15-17).

Parallels with Mediterranean mystery religions

Some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that many aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have remarkable parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the hellenic culture amongst which Christianty was born. The central figure of one of the most widespread, Osiris-Dionysus, was consistently localised and deliberately merged with local deities in each area, since it was the mysteries which were imparted that were regarded as important, not the method by which they were taught. In the view of some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, most prominently Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, Jewish mystics adapted their form of Osiris-Dionysus to match prior Jewish heroes like Moses and Joshua, hence creating Jesus.

Several parallels are frequently cited by these advocates, and often appear, somewhat less carefully mixed with more dubious parallels, on internet sites. The most prominently cited and plausible parallels are with Horus and Mithras. Horus was one of the life-death-rebirth deities, and was connected and involved in the resurrection of Osiris, whose Egyptian name (Asar) is very similar to the root of Lazarus.

In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser. Worship of Isis, Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and the proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography, has some merit.

The suggestion of parallels with such myths, however, has frequently gained little traction in the academic community. It is certainly the case that advocates of the Jesus Myth theory citing the parallels are frequently let down by citing dubious sources, choosing to include even ridiculous or implausible parallels, advocating particular theologies to replace Christianity, and using non standard terms (e.g. anup the baptiser rather than Anubis the anointer/embalmer) which others fail to recognise.

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom [12], a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians. However, it is notable that, unlike modern opponents, several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery. For their part, the historic opponents of early Christians wrote that Christians had the same religion and practice as they, but were too stupid to understand it.

In later years, Mithras worship became the most prominent rival to Christianity, and the idea that many Christian practices, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date, and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship, derived originally from Mithraism, through a process known as christianization, is regarded as possible by mainstream historians. Mithras was a solar deity, and so was seen as being born just after the winter solstice, and the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun, in turn being renamed Sunday.Vorlage:Fact Parallels between Mithras and the birth-narrative of Luke are also proposed by some advocates of the Jesus myth, since Mithras, as a sun god, was born under the zodiac sign that at that time was known as the stable of Augeas, though these latter parallels are not so supported in the academic community.

Supporters of Jesus' historicity point out that even Christian sources acknowledge that the public celebration of Jesus' birth was adopted from the date of the festival of Sol Invictus,Vorlage:Fact and that this has no bearing on the reliability of the Gospels, since they make no claims about the date. In fact, references in Luke and Matthew point to Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September.Vorlage:Fact Neither do any Christian churches claim that the date for the celebration is anything other than symbolic.

Historiography and methodology

Price and other advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the inconsistencies between the Gospels, birth stories, genealogies, chronologies, and other parts of the narrative makes them worthless as historical documents. According to these authors, the historiography of the Gospels means that they can provide no meaningful historical information about the time Jesus was alleged to have lived, but only about the authors of the Gospels and their own communities [13].

Although seldom remarked on by New Testament scholars, some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that historians lack any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan, a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata. While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.

Opponents of the theory, including skeptical commentators such as the Jesus Seminar, argue that some reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used.

Biblical contradictions

The Christian Bible is a collection of the majority of documents supporting the historicity of Jesus, and the only reliable sources for details on his life. Those who advocate the theory that Jesus is a myth consider contradictions in the Bible to impeach the credibility of those documents. Those who oppose the theory generally consider the contradictions to be inconsequential and largely the result of the orally-transmitted roots of the documents. A significant minority of Christians hold to the concept of Biblical Inerrancy and assert that contradictions are apparent only and result from human failings to properly interpret the Bible.

The following is a partial listing of claims by skeptics of contradictions in major biographical details of Jesus's life and death. Those who deny the historicity of Jesus would claim that facts such as these should not be in dispute.

Genealogy

Matthew 1:1-16 traces Jesus's lineage from King David's son Solomon through to Joseph's father, Jacob. Luke 3:23-31 traces a completely different lineage from King David's son Nathan to Joseph's father, Heli. Christian apologists traditionally explain this discrepancy by suggesting that one records a patrilineal genealogy while the other a matrilineal one, but both identify different fathers for Joseph and neither mentions Mary. Further, there is no historical precedent for indicating a matrilineal genealogy for a first-century Jewish man, and especially not to establish that man's royal heritage.

Early childhood

According to Matthew 2:13-16, Mary and Joseph fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt in order to escape Herod's slaughtering of "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under." The family does not return until the end of Herod's reign. In Luke 2:39-40, the holy family returns directly to Nazareth from Bethlehem, traveling to Jerusalem every year for the Passover feast. No mention of any acts of infanticide is made.

The Disciples

The Disciples of Jesus were twelve men personally selected by Jesus and who served as his traveling companions throughout his ministry. They would have come to know each other as well as any close family member.

Matthew 4:18-20 and Mark 4:18-20 both recount the same story of how Jesus selected his first Apostle, Peter, but the stories of Peter's selection from Luke 5:2-11 and John 1:35-42 are completely different. However, many apologetists might argue that Matthew and Mark's accounts just say where Peter was found, that Luke's account goes indepth, that John's talks about how the news of the Messiah was told to Peter, and who knew in Luke that Jesus claimed to be Lord.]

Matthew 10:2 and Mark 3:16-19 both list the same set of disciples. Luke 6:13-16 omits Thaddaeus and includes Judas son of James in his place. Acts 1:13,26 agrees with Luke but adds that the remaining disciples chose Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. John neither provides a list nor indicates their number, though it does mention nine of them by name at various places.

The trial

According to Matthew 26:18-20, 26:57-68, 27:1-2, Mark 14:16-18, 14:53-72, and 15:1, Jesus's initial hearing was at night on the first evening of Passover; in the morning, he was taken to Pontius Pilate. Luke 22:13-15 and 54-66 record the hearing as having taken place in the morning, and in John 18:28 and 19:14 it happened the day before. This is especially significant as the first evening of Passover was and is one of the holiest days of the year for Jews, a day on which conducting business of any kind would be anathema.

In Matthew 26:59-66 and Mark 14:55-64, Jesus is tried by the entire Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. In Luke 22:66-71, there was no trial, but only an inquiry held by the Sanhedrin. In John 18:13-24, Jesus was never brought before the Sanhedrin at all; Jesus only had private hearings before Annas and Caiphas.

Matthew 27:11-14 reports that Jesus maintained a stoic silence at his hearing before Pilate. According to John 18:33-37, Jesus answered all the charges eloquently and at length.

The chief priests and elders persuade the people to demand the release of Barabbas in Matthew 27:20, whereas in Mark 15:11 only the chief priests are responsible, and in Luke 23:18-23 the people seem to decide for themselves without prompting from leadership.

The Resurrection

Biblical accounts of the resurrection differ on a great number of details of varying significance, including who was at and who went to the tomb, when they arrived, whether nor not the stone covered the tomb, whether or not there was an earthquake, who did what afterwards, how and to whom Jesus made his initial appearances after his resurrection, and the reactions of those he appeared to. The discrepancies are generally attributed to either an understandable confusion on the part of those who witnessed this most extraordinary event, or a sure sign of multiple sources offering creative fictional interpretation of an event they were not witness to themselves.

The Ascension

In both Mark 16:14-19 and Luke 24:50-51, the Ascension takes place the same day as the Resurrection. In Mark, while seated at a table in or near Jerusalem, Jesus commands the Disciples to spread the Gospel and tells them that they may identify themselves to unbelievers by their invulnerability to poison and abilities to heal the sick and then is received into Heaven. In Luke, the Disciples are outdoors at Bethany where Jesus was in the act of blessing them when he was carried up to Heaven.

In Acts 1:9-12, forty days have passed, during which Jesus continued to preach the Gospel. The Disciples are northeast of Bethany, at Mount Olivet. Jesus delivers a brief final message to his Disciples and is taken up and received by a cloud. Two men, clothed in white, appear out of nowhere to tell the Disciples that Jesus will return in the same manner as he was taken.

Matthew contains no mention of the Ascension.

Events only recorded in the Bible

In addition to the numerous contradictions in the Bible's own account of Jesus's life, those who reject the historicity of Jesus consider the numerous spectacular events recorded only in the Bible and nowhere else as irreparably condemning the Bible's reliability as a historical account.

Those who hold to the historicity of Jesus generally, though not universally, acknowledge that the Bible is not to be considered the literal truth, and that it contains many obviously-mythical elements; rather, they consider what follows to be later additions to the core truth of the historical Jesus, in much the same way that a caught fish gets bigger each time in the re-telling. Those who hold that Jesus is a myth see no evidence that any fish was ever caught in the first place.

Star of Bethlehem

Although many explanations have been offered for the Star of Bethlehem, no actual record of any such astronomical phenomenon can be found.

Flight to Egypt

Also as mentioned above, Matthew 2:13-16 records the holy family as having fled to Egypt. Though they may well have remained incognito while they lived there, the Bible says nothing on the matter one way or the other. If they did not keep their identities hidden, it is most likely that Philo, who was living in Alexandria at this time, would have recorded the presence of the prophesied and persecuted future King of the Jews.

Public miracles

The Bible records Jesus as having performed some very public miracles, in front of crowds numbering, in some cases, in the thousands. He healed the sick, blind, and lame; he raised the dead; he walked on water; and he fed multitudes with table scraps. History is replete with people doing such deeds, but every other instance is universally assumed to be mythic fiction.

Public ministry

Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount to a crowd of "multitudes," and the Sermon on the Plain to "great multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." This clearly indicates that Jesus must have been a popular figure known throughout the entire region; yet, no mention is made of any preacher giving such a sermon to such crowds.

The only problem with the statement above is that with whom was Jesus popular with? The poor! Within this era of history, who is going to believe poor, blind, crippled individuals about the Savior of the world? The assertion above proves nothing.

The trial

Jesus's trial is notable for what it describes as a great many of the most egregious possible violations of Jewish and Roman law and custom by all officials involved. The trial is said to have taken place during Pesach, one of the holiest holidays for Jews then and now, on which such activities are most strictly forbidden. There was no need for the Jews to appeal to Roman authority for assistance in the trial; they had full authority from the Romans to execute anybody for any reason sanctioned by their own laws. There was even less reason for the Romans to agree to intervene in what would have been to them internecine provincial politics. The behavior of the Sanhedrin, such as spitting on Jesus, would have been just as shocking to people then as would similar action by the members of the United States Supreme Court today. If Pilate had agreed to take the case, he would not have permitted an unruly mob to have remained present, let alone have a say in the trial. While the Romans courts, like all courts, surely freed the guilty and executed the innocent, they never would have publicly declared their intention to do so any more than would any modern court; Pilate's acquiescence in granting the mob Barabbas in exchange for Jesus is incomprehensible. Finally, had Pilate actually acted as described, Rome would have had his head on a platter, figuratively if not literally, for letting a mob dictate his actions as well as for general gross misconduct.

In short, if even one aspect of the trial happened as described, it would have caught the attention--and raised the ire--of a great many important people in the region and beyond. If all of it happened as described, it would have been the most scandalous trial of the millennium.

The crucifixion

While there are undoubtedly many people who were crucified who remain unknown to history, various records of countless crucifixions survive. Romans saw crucifixion as a most ignominious way to die, and, as such, crucifixions often caught the attention of local historians. Sometimes Romans would crucify hundreds of people a day, but they also crucified people singly or in small groups. Josephus records many of these, including that of a Jesus who was the son of a man named Stada, but nobody recorded any crucifixion of a charismatic rebel preacher who could be mistaken for Jesus Christ.

Portents at Jesus's death

The Gospels record ominous portents as having occurred at the time of Jesus's death. As recorded in Matthew 27:45-54 and similarly in the other synoptic Gospels, a three-hour darkness was "over all the land"; the veil of the temple was rent; there was an earthquake; and the graves opened and dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem.

No eclipse would have been astronomically possible at the time; Pesach, according to the lunar calendar, always is celebrated with the start of the full moon, and eclipses can only happen when the moon is new. Further, no eclipse ever lasts for more than a few minutes--let alone three hours. No account of this most remarkable event, visible from "all the land," can be found outside the Gospels.

Records of major earthquakes from the period are rather comprehensive, yet no recorded earthquake happened at a time when the crucifixion could have happened.

The rending of the veil of the temple would have been a most remarkable occurrence, yet it remained intact until the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.

Had presumably all the graves in the area been opened and a corresponding number of dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem, it is absolutely certain that those many would have reported the fact, yet none did.

The Resurrected Jesus

Acts 1:3 says that, for forty days after his resurrection, Jesus continued his ministry, yet no extra-Biblical record can be found of the most remarkable fact of a man, very publicly executed, continuing to do for over a month that which got him executed in the first place.

The Ascension

According to Acts 1:9, Jesus Ascended to Heaven from atop Mount Olivet, which would have been in full view of all of Jerusalem. Once more, no account of the Ascension can be found outside of the Bible.

Mainstream Scholarly reception

Vorlage:Split The unhistoricity theory is a minority among scholars. Professor Robert E. Van Voorst has stated:

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

However, Doherty's interpretation of this fact is that:

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: Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case. Abgerufen am 9. Januar 2007. 

The idea of Jesus as a myth has received strong criticism from a number of biblical scholars and historians. The points below highlight some of these criticisms.

• Some scholars, like Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the pagan myths and Christianity. Grant states in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
• Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. There is good early evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
• Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by some scholars. A Christian apologist, Michael Licona, has summed up this viewpoint:

Many scholars have abandoned the religionsgeschichtliche or what was known as the “history of religions” school that regarded parallels as conclusive signs that Christianity was cut from the same cloth as ancient myth. Further research has revealed that many of the parallels to which they refer postdate the Gospels.

• Through cultural diffusion it would have been natural for Jesus and/or his followers within a Hellenized Judea to incorporate the philosophy and sentiment of Epicureanism, Stoicism, neo-Platonism/proto-Gnosticism , and mystery cults. The ideas that these belief systems brought concerning the afterlife, presence of the divine, and wisdom were incorporated into Judaism for several centuries before Jesus and can be found in the Old Testament and Apocrypha.
• Those who do not hold to the Jesus-Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. This is largely an argument from silence.Vorlage:Fact Furthermore, they argue that it is a distortion, because statements of the Apostle Paul appear to contradict this viewpoint several times.Vorlage:Fact He claims that Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh." Paul also states that "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" and that "the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being." Paul clearly states that in "taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, And being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross." Furthermore, he invokes the "command," "charge," or "word" of Jesus four times in the Epistles.
• The Epistle to the Hebrews is debatably an early source, which some, but not all, scholars put before 70 CE. Their reasoning is that the Epistle makes mention of animal sacrifice, which was a practice that fell out of favor in Judaism after the destruction of the temple. In Hebrews, Jesus is mentioned several times in physical form and even speaks.

Jesus in non-Christian sources

• Extant non-Christian sources which make mention of Jesus, including those opposed to Christianity, regard him as a historical figure. Two passages in the Jewish historian Josephus refer to Jesus, although scholars generally hold that the longer is at least partly interpolated. Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer. He never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus. He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man." Furthermore, there is debate whether Suetonius, who wrote in the second century, made reference to Christianity existing in 41 CE, though the majority of scholars believe that the reference cannot be interpreted in this fashion. Lastly, there are passages of debatable significance from the historian Tacitus and satirist Lucian of Samosata, which credit "Christ" as the founder of Christianity.

See also

• The God Who Wasn't There
• John of Gamala
• Jus Asaf

References

• John M. Allegro: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East. Hodder and Stoughton, London 1970, ISBN 0-340-12875-5. 
• Vorlage:Cite encyclopedia
• John R. Bartlett: The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1973, ISBN 0-521-08658-2. 
• Vorlage:Cite encyclopedia
• Dennis C. Duling, N. Perrin: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. 1993. 
• Michael Grant: Jesus. Phoenix, London 1999, ISBN 0-7538-0899-4 ( [1977]). 
• J. N. D. Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed., rev. A. & C. Black, London 1985, ISBN 0-7136-2723-9. 
• William C. Martin: These Were God's People: A Bible History. The Southwestern Company, Nashville, Tennessee 1966. 
• Morton Smith: Jesus the Magician. Gollancz, London 1978, ISBN 0-575-02484-4. 
• Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. W. B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, Mich. 2000, ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. 

Further reading

• John M. Allegro: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. 2nd rev. ed. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. 1992, ISBN 0-87975-757-4. 
• Joseph Atwill: The Roman Origins of Christianity. J. Atwill, 2003, ISBN 0-9740928-0-0. 
• Joseph Atwill: Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Ulysses, Berkeley, Calif. 2005, ISBN 1-56975-457-8. 
• Thomas L. Brodie: The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 2000, ISBN 0-8146-5942-X. 
• Earl Doherty: The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins. In: Journal of Higher Criticism. 4. Jahrgang, Nr. 2 (inter.net [abgerufen am 9. Januar 2007]). 
• Earl Doherty: [[The Jesus Puzzle]]: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ? rev. ed. Canadian Humanist Publications, Ottawa 2000, ISBN 0-9686014-0-5. 
• Alvar Ellegård: Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study in Creative Mythology. Century, London 1999, ISBN 0-7126-7956-1. 
• R. T. France: The Evidence for Jesus. Hodder & Stoughton, London 1986, ISBN 0-340-38172-8. 
• Timothy Freke, and Peter Gandy: [[The Jesus Mysteries]]: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? Thorsons, London 1999, ISBN 0-7225-3676-3. 
• John P Meier: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. Auflage. Doubleday, New York. 
  1. The Roots of the Problem and the Person. 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9. 
  2. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6. 
  3. Companions and Competitors. 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4. 
• Robert M. Price: Deconstructing Jesus. Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y. 2000, ISBN 1-57392-758-9. 
• Robert M. Price: The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y. 2003, ISBN 1-59102-121-9. 
• Vorlage:Cite encyclopedia
• E. P. Sanders: The Historical Figure of Jesus. Allen Lane, London 1993, ISBN 0-7139-9059-7. 
• Seznec, Jean. 1972, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017832
• Gerd Theissen, trans. John Bowden: The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1998, ISBN 0-8006-3123-4. 
• Thomas L. Thompson: The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Basic Books, New York 2005, ISBN 0-465-08577-6. 
• G. A. Wells: The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. 1982, ISBN 0-87975-180-0. 
• G. A. Wells: The Jesus Myth. Open Court, Chicago 1999, ISBN 0-8126-9392-2. 
• G. A. Wells: Earliest Christianity. In: New Humanist. 114. Jahrgang, Nr. 3, September 1999, S. 13–18 (infidels.org [abgerufen am 11. Januar 2007]). 

External links

Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

• Earl Doherty's Website
• "The Origins of Christianity and Search for the Historical Jesus Christ" by Acharya S
• "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" by Richard Carrier
• Jesus never existed
• Jesus (was) is a Fictional character (not "historical") Rt. Rev. Lino Sanchez
• The Non-Historicity of Jesus Michael Hoffman
• Hermann Detering's RadikalKritik (partially in German)
• Debunking the Historical Jesus
• "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke/Gandy

Supporting a historical Jesus

• Historical Jesus Christ Unveiled
• Critique of the Jesus Puzzle by Bernard D. Muller
• "A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth" by Christopher Price
• "Shattering the Jesus Myth" by J.P. Holding
• "Answering Acharya S" by Mike Licona
  • Acharya rebuttal to Licona
• "Did Jesus Exist" a page devoted to the issues raised by the Jesus Myth

• Constantin Brunner's critique of mythicism. This is the full text of Constantin Brunner's 1921 essay attacking the idea that Jesus never lived.