Jesus Myth Theory

[N_igma]

Ok I'm not one normally to follow these sort of things but I've been doing a little research on the whole idea that there never was an historical figure named Jesus and I've been convinced of the idea that such a person never actually existed.

There are numerous reasons to suggest this assertion.

1) The lack of contemperorary sources pertaining to this figure. The Gospels were written well after he was alleged to have lived. The earliest epistles of Christians such as Paul are ambiguous as to whether Jesus was a celestial being and the death and resurrection being held in a realm outside the world or whether he was a real person.

2) The similarities to other dying and rising Gods in earlier religious systems like Osiris, Adonis and to a certain extent Mithras.

3) No archaeological evidence of his existence.

4) Accusations of early Christians destroying other Christian sects' texts that contradict the common agreed biographical Jesus character so that the accepted version prevailed to this day

There are other arguments I've missed out but I'm coming to the conclusion that at best there was a guy living around this time who's life and actions got turned into something that if he wouldn't even recognise that it was him they were talking about. Or he is a complete fabrication.

Am I going conspiraloon with this one you think?

 

[phildwyer]

Am I going conspiraloon with this one you think?

Yes.

There was no need to make him up. First-century Palestine was crawling with people like him, saying and doing pretty much exactly what he's reported to have said and done.

 

[N_igma]

Yes.

There was no need to make him up. First-century Palestine was crawling with people like him, saying and doing pretty much exactly what he's reported to have said and done.

Ok but you do agree that all the stuff in the Gospels is mostly bollocks yes?

 

[phildwyer]

Ok but you do agree that all the stuff in the Gospels is mostly bollocks yes?

I don't believe in the physical resurrection. But a pacifist, anti-colonialist, faith-healing, anti-Rabbinical Jew who attracted a few poverty-stricken disciples and was executed for his pains? Absolutely no reason to disbelieve in that. There would have been dozens of them.

 

[JimW]

I reckon that point 1 isn't too strong, he wouldn't have been sufficiently of note to be mentioned until his cult grew after his death, point 2 those similarities are mostly due to the cult borrowing various existing religious tropes, so doesn't say anything one way or the other about his life, point 3 not sure what archaeological evidence you'd expect and point 4 well maybe.
I reckon he likely did exist as some sort of messianic figure, which is not to say he's exactly the person/godhead portrayed in later myth.

 

[N_igma]

I don't believe in the physical resurrection. But a pacifist, anti-colonialist, faith-healing, anti-Rabbinical Jew who attracted a few poverty-stricken disciples and was executed for his pains? Absolutely no reason to disbelieve in that. There would have been dozens of them.

Yeh but these pacifist, anti-colonial, faith healing attributes were attributed to him long after he was alleged to live. How do we know this person was exactly like that and that the quotes he said were exactly that verbatim. I don't think oral tradition can pass down anyone's quotes word for word a couple of generations after that person live. I think there is very good reason to question that belief.

 

[phildwyer]

Yeh but these pacifist, anti-colonial, faith healing attributes were attributed to him long after he was alleged to live. How do we know this person was exactly like that and that the quotes he said were exactly that verbatim. I don't think oral tradition can pass down anyone's quotes word for word a couple of generations after that person live. I think there is very good reason to question that belief.

I'd agree if I thought they had a reason to lie. But I don't see any such reason among the Gospel writers. Seems most likely that they recorded a reasonably accurate tradition, or at least tried to. Paul is a different kettle of fish, but he never claimed to have met JC in the flesh.

 

[StoneRoad]

myth about sums it up.

no evidence to prove otherwise that doesn't dissolve into circular arguments.

gospels are not contemporary verbatim accounts, and have significant divergence.

 

[Casually Red]

Don't mean to worry you phil but yours was post number 6 , on a thread 66 other people had looked at .

Bear that in mind before you say more.

 

[Sirena]

You would also have to take into account the Nag Hammadi writings into account. They are broadly contemporary with the gospels and they contribute to the Jesus mythos:

Nag Hammadi Library

I think it actually detracts from the mythos to insist that he was human.

 

[DrRingDing]

There was no need to make him up. First-century Palestine was crawling with people like him, saying and doing pretty much exactly what he's reported to have said and done.

Were there? Or have you been watching the Life of Brian?

 

[phildwyer]

Were there? Or have you been watching the Life of Brian?

No, there really were. Barrabas was probably one of them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Were there? Or have you been watching the Life of Brian?

Selina O'Grady mentions a couple of figures who she considers would have been thought more likely candidates for longevity than Jesus if you were transported back there. Can't remember their names now.

Isn't much of the explanation for why Jesus is the name attached to the religion rather than someone else down pretty much single-handedly to the energy and drive of Paul, who never met him?

 

[N_igma]

I'd agree if I thought they had a reason to lie. But I don't see any such reason among the Gospel writers. Seems most likely that they recorded a reasonably accurate tradition, or at least tried to. Paul is a different kettle of fish, but he never claimed to have met JC in the flesh.

I think there is good reason to lie especially if you look at the composition of the Bible. The Jewish Bible starts with the laws, the prophets then the writings. The Christian Bible starts with the laws, then the writings then the prophets. This was changed so the messianic prophecy would be more profound.

Also the New Testament we can all agree that the first writings were the epistles of Paul and the Gospels themselves Mark wrote the first one but we see Matthew in all the copies of the New Testament. Why Matthew because he talks of the genealogy of Jesus. Why aren't they presented in chronological order? Surely the ones written closest to the time of Jesus should take preference? I think it was presented like that to make the story of Jesus more believable to this new cult. If he did exist his story got taken way way out of hand.

 

[MooChild]

I liked the Meggitt theory

Why was Jesus killed by the Romans? Was he a dangerous subversive, executed because he declared himself to be the Son of God? Or was he silenced for another - far more disturbing - reason that has so far been overlooked? Most scholars believe that Jesus died on a cross because he was viewed as a messianic pretender who challenged Roman rule and had to be eliminated, whatever the cost.

But Justin Meggitt suggests otherwise: that the rulers of Judaea did not perceive Jesus as being any threat at all. So why else would this 'King of the Jews' have been executed while his disciples were allowed to go free? Usual practice in the empire was to hunt down perceived 'rebels' in order to squash all sources of opposition. Yet Peter and the other apostles remained entirely at large to spread their gospel.

All the evidence points to the fact that Jesus' executioners thought him to be an inconsequential and deluded lunatic, to be mocked as they taunted other madmen of the day, and then put out of his misery. Rather than wanting to liquidate a threatening political agitator, the motives of the Romans were rather those of pragmatic - or gratuitously sadistic - policing.

Drawing on fresh sources and rare medical texts about mental illness in antiquity, this provocative and daringly original book - written by a leading scholar of Christian history - explores the full implications of Jesus as 'mad' for our understanding of his mission and message.

 

[Orang Utan]

if he didn't exist and didn't do all those things, then why do they call the most famous accounts of his life the gospels? Eh? Eh? Put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[ska invita]

Ok I'm not one normally to follow these sort of things but I've been doing a little research on the whole idea that there never was an historical figure named Jesus and I've been convinced of the idea that such a person never actually existed.

There are numerous reasons to suggest this assertion.

1) The lack of contemperorary sources pertaining to this figure. The Gospels were written well after he was alleged to have lived. The earliest epistles of Christians such as Paul are ambiguous as to whether Jesus was a celestial being and the death and resurrection being held in a realm outside the world or whether he was a real person.

2) The similarities to other dying and rising Gods in earlier religious systems like Osiris, Adonis and to a certain extent Mithras.

3) No archaeological evidence of his existence.

4) Accusations of early Christians destroying other Christian sects' texts that contradict the common agreed biographical Jesus character so that the accepted version prevailed to this day

There are other arguments I've missed out but I'm coming to the conclusion that at best there was a guy living around this time who's life and actions got turned into something that if he wouldn't even recognise that it was him they were talking about. Or he is a complete fabrication.

Am I going conspiraloon with this one you think?

We've done this on the boards (at least) once before and I dont think its clear cut he existed, for the reasons you state. Its far from cut and dry. So having heard the arguments both ways Im happy to be left with the doubt, but more than that, ultimately it makes absolutely zero difference whether he actually lived or not. So I'm really not fussed about the truth of it. Christianity does exist, and thats that.

 

[danny la rouge]

1) The lack of contemperorary sources pertaining to this figure.

That's not really surprising for a figure of that era or location.

Compare for example with sources for Socrates. Plato knew him, but wrote about him only after his death and is generally believed to have put words in his mouth rather than faithfully recorded.

There are accounts of Jesus, just none from his lifetime. Like Socrates.

2) The similarities to other dying and rising Gods in earlier religious systems like Osiris, Adonis and to a certain extent Mithras.

That only suggests he wasn't really the Son of God, which I don't think we need to contest.

Like Socrates, his followers were sufficiently impressed by him to add to his legacy.

3) No archaeological evidence of his existence.

Again, rather than this being a problem, it would be surprising if there was. A nomadic preacher from 2000 years ago? What would there be?

4) Accusations of early Christians destroying other Christian sects' texts that contradict the common agreed biographical Jesus character so that the accepted version prevailed to this day

That only suggests an orthodoxy emerging from the heterodoxy about him. The tales were embellished for sure, but there would come a point when the leaders would realise there was a lot of off message stuff springing up. That doesn't prove he didn't exist, but that decades after his death they needed to get a grip on the message.

I'm coming to the conclusion that at best there was a guy living around this time who's life and actions got turned into something

This. He was an impressive and charismatic guy. He didn't write anything down. He probably couldn't. Most of those who were impressed by him probably couldn't either. And when he was gone his followers had to try to remember what he said and what he meant by it. By the time the later gospels were written (Luke for example is generally thought to have been written in about 80CE to 100CE) we're now 50-70 years after his death. Plenty of time for all sorts of corruptions to creep in.

 

[ska invita]

That doesn't prove he didn't exist

The onus is on history is to prove he DID exist - no one need prove he didn't exist, as that is the starting point of historical record - it didnt happen unless it can be proven it did.

 

[danny la rouge]

The onus is on history is to prove he DID exist - no one need prove he didn't exist, as that is the starting point of historical record - it didnt happen unless it can be proven it did.

There are plenty of figures for whom we don't have contemporary records (Socrates for example) and for whom we don't have archeological evidence (Socrates again) and for whom the second hand written evidence that exists is contradictory and inaccurate (yet again Socrates) but who we accept existed because people were impressed enough to write down their semi-mythologised stories about them.

The evidence that Jesus existed is as good as that for Socrates and others. It's not definite. There's no record in birth deaths and marriages and there's no skeleton, but I think that on balance it's reasonable to say that there was a teacher in Galilee (probably born in Nazareth not Bethlehem), probably called Yeshua (ben Yosef?) and who passed on a core of sayings that can be seen amongst later additions in the gospels.

The earliest of the NT writings are actually in Acts rather than the Gospels, and First Thessalonians is probably the earliest, dating to 51 CE. That's quite soon after his death. It was ostensibly written by someone who hadn't met Jesus in life (Paul) but was written soon enough to be in the lifetime of people who knew him. It contains no biography such as the Gospels do, but it does contain references to the life Jesus lived and what kind of person he was.

If this document and others like it were about someone other than the Son of God, historians of that era would be pleased to accept it as good evidence of an impressive teacher who existed.

It's important that we don't approach this issue with expectations of the kind of documentary or archeological evidence we'd see for a 20th or 19th century figure in a society with widespread literacy.

 

[tim]

Ok but you do agree that all the stuff in the Gospels is mostly bollocks yes?

Bollocks for you perhaps; personally I take the fascinating and influentual literary text line. Try reading a gospel or two alongside a well-written objective commentary. If the gospels are too big a turn off do something similar with some other ancient work of literature.

 

[Santino]

The onus is on history is to prove he DID exist - no one need prove he didn't exist, as that is the starting point of historical record - it didnt happen unless it can be proven it did.

That's not really how history works. There is a large body of evidence of a person called Jesus. The historian should seek the best explanation for that tradition.

 

[tim]

3) No archaeological evidence of his existence.

I don't suppose you'll leave much archaeological evidence of your existence. Archaeology tells us how people in the past lived, it rarely tells us who they were.

 

[ska invita]

The evidence that Jesus existed is as good as that for Socrates and others. It's not definite.

I hear you Danny, but as you say its not definite, and there are potential reasons to believe he was invented. The best you can do in this kind of uncertain situation is weigh up the evidence and put some odds on it one way or another. Remaining impartial is key. Like I said, it is in fact irrelevant whether he lived or not, and changes nothing either way. The things we do have for certain (books of the bible etc) are there, and have a history of their own that his potential existence changes none. And even in the things we do have there is uncertainty (Bible translations, missing books, original sources for stories etc). That the water is very cloudy is one thing we can be certain of.

 

[danny la rouge]

A good place to start might be the short but excellent book: Humphrey Carpenter (1980), Jesus, Oxford: OUP. There are still cheap second hand copies about out there.

Then the seminal The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer.

 

[JimW]

Plus there's at least thirty tonnes of wood from the True Cross left and numerous crowns of thorns. We even had gallons of his mother's milk at one time.

 

[danny la rouge]

That the water is very cloudy is one thing we can be certain of.

The water is very cloudy about what Jesus actually said (although there is a big body of scholarship trying to sift that pool. You could try Who On Earth Was Jesus? by David Boulton for an up-to-date review of that field if it's your bag). But I think that there is enough evidence to say there was indeed a preacher behind the myth. We can even be pretty certain his name was Yeshua: it's a crap name for a mythical figure of the time, as it's quite a common name in First Century Galilee.

 

[ska invita]

BTW there is a difference between Socrates and Jesus in this conversation: Plato was concerned with Truth and comes across today as a reliable source, whereas the assorted Christians comes across as fantasists, exaggerators and outright speakers of untruths - far less reliable.

 

[Arty Drum]

Whoever the person / people behind the archetype named ''Jesus Christ'' were, there's a reasonably popular theory going about that the gospels themselves were written by scribes led by Josephus, who was Vespasian Flavius' chief historian and propagandist. Interestingly, Josephus' writings are often cited as non-gospel ''evidence'' that Jesus was a real person.

People who subscribe to this tend to claim that his son Titus' adventures in Judea and Palestine are what the gospels are actually describing, albeit in metaphorical form.

They also enjoy revealing that Constantine the Great was of the family Flavius (which he was) and that this partly accounts for his promotion of christianity during his time as emperor.

It's a fun and possibly bollocks ''conspiracy'' theory which may mean nothing at all, but may contain seeds of truth - and for anyone who's curious there's a documentary here:

 

[danny la rouge]

BTW there is a difference between Socrates and Jesus in this conversation: Plato was concerned with Truth and comes across today as a reliable source, whereas the assorted Christians comes across as fantasists, exaggerators and outright speakers of untruths - far less reliable.

I'm not sure any of the accounts of Socrates, including Plato, are seen as accurate or trustworthy accounts of Socrates.