Is There Evidence Of Historical Christ From Non Religious Sources

[mymistake]

There has been a challenge to the myth theory and not wanting to take over Brother Jeff's glorious thread I thought this topic deserved it's own.

 

 

So which historical figure comes the closest to Christ?  So far the best I have found is Jesus son of Eleazar, son of Sirach who died a few hundred years before Paul.  It's true his writings are religious in nature but he doesn't claim to be anything other than a mundane teacher so his writings demonstrate a human author existed.

 

Is there any evidence that refutes the myth theory?

[Aries256]

I've found no evidence of the existence of any jesus christ, none, zilch.

[miekko]

The myth hypothesis cannot be refuted with anything less than quite remarkable evidence.

[mymistake]

The myth hypothesis cannot be refuted with anything less than quite remarkable evidence.

 

 

Pardon?  What does that mean?

[directionless]

I assume the myth theory claims that there was no founder of Christianity whose biography even remotely resembled the gospel stories (teaching some disciples and getting crucified)?

 

What is the evidence for and against?

[mymistake]

I assume the myth theory claims that there was no founder of Christianity whose biography even remotely resembled the gospel stories (teaching some disciples and getting crucified)?

 

What is the evidence for and against?

 

 

Essentially the myth theory notes that Paul is the oldest surviving source to mention Jesus Christ.  Then a few decades later the Gospel of Mark turns up but Mark has a very strong resemblance to Homer's Odyssey.  At the time Homer's Odyssey was one of the most popular books in Greek.  A few decades after Mark we get Luke and Matthew which elaborate and expand on Mark.  Stories about Jesus become more elaborate over time.  Then in the second century we get gospels like John and books like Revelation.  Around this time historians and those in government have noticed Christians and started to comment about the religion.  If you pick up a copy of Lost Scriptures by Bart Ehrman he lists dozens of gospels and scores of epistles, acts and apocalypse style books written in the 3rd and 4th century.  These other books did not get chosen for the Bible but they demonstrate the trend which takes New Testament writings and runs wild with them expanding the stories even further.  The stories kept growing and growing.

 

Jesus Christ looks just like King Author and Robin Hood.

 

 

I have come to view Mark as originally intended as a joke.  Maybe a few religious leaders edited it later but it's author had to have known he was sailing too close to the wind.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/homer.htm

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html

http://www.amazon.com/The-Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613

[TrueFreedom]

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

[mymistake]

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

 

 

Some of the early Judeo-Christian roots:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Orbit]

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

There's a good book on this called "Who Wrote the New Testament?".There were Jewish Jesus Cults, and then Paul, who disagreed with them on keeping the law, and constructed Gentile Christianity. 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411400148&sr=8-1&keywords=who+wrote+the+new+testament

[TrueFreedom]

 

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

 

 

Some of the early Judeo-Christian roots:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Right.  They all rejected Paul.  Where did they get their teachings?

[mikey101]

 

Is there any evidence that refutes the myth theory?

The Josephus account is used by Christians as proof but the authenticity is debated among scholars.  

 

When someone famous (or semi-famous) dies, people always make a big deal about them, making them into martyrs or larger than life 'gods'.  I'm not a Christian theologian, and it's not my religion anyway so I don't really care one way or the other.

[Orbit]

 

 

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

 

 

Some of the early Judeo-Christian roots:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Right.  They all rejected Paul.  Where did they get their teachings?

 

From Jewish tradition, and they generated these teachings themselves. For the Essenes, one of the sources is their own Nag Hammadi scrolls.

[miekko]

I assume the myth theory claims that there was no founder of Christianity whose biography even remotely resembled the gospel stories (teaching some disciples and getting crucified)?

 

What is the evidence for and against?

Several versions of the myth theory are much stronger than that - D.M. Murdock, Alvar Ellegård and J.M. Allegro all make claims along the lines that christianity was explicitly manufactured, a narrative that isn't even a significant distortion of a real life person, but an actual intentional piece of fiction.

 

Not all mythicists go that route, but those three at the very least. 

[mymistake]

 

 

I find the schism between Paul and the actual disciples evidence enough of a historical figure.  Where did the Jewish followers get their teachings?  What were their myths and legends based on?

 

 

Some of the early Judeo-Christian roots:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Right.  They all rejected Paul.  Where did they get their teachings?

 

 

I don't know.  I wish I had something better than Wikipedia to offer.

[qadeshet]

Kenneth Humphreys has a good summary of the subject.

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

 

"Jesus" the Samaritan and "Jesus" the Egyptian are good suspects. Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus bar Damneus are good possibilities.

 

Here are more parallels to the works of Josephus.

 

http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels2.htm

 

There was no Jesus, born of a virgin, etc. If he existed, he was a nobody that his contemporaries failed to mention. 

[UnFundEd]

 

I assume the myth theory claims that there was no founder of Christianity whose biography even remotely resembled the gospel stories (teaching some disciples and getting crucified)?

What is the evidence for and against?

 

 

 

Essentially the myth theory notes that Paul is the oldest surviving source to mention Jesus Christ.  Then a few decades later the Gospel of Mark turns up but Mark has a very strong resemblance to Homer's Odyssey.  At the time Homer's Odyssey was one of the most popular books in Greek.  A few decades after Mark we get Luke and Matthew which elaborate and expand on Mark.  Stories about Jesus become more elaborate over time.  Then in the second century we get gospels like John and books like Revelation.  Around this time historians and those in government have noticed Christians and started to comment about the religion.  If you pick up a copy of Lost Scriptures by Bart Ehrman he lists dozens of gospels and scores of epistles, acts and apocalypse style books written in the 3rd and 4th century.  These other books did not get chosen for the Bible but they demonstrate the trend which takes New Testament writings and runs wild with them expanding the stories even further.  The stories kept growing and growing.

 

Jesus Christ looks just like King Author and Robin Hood.

 

 

I have come to view Mark as originally intended as a joke.  Maybe a few religious leaders edited it later but it's author had to have known he was sailing too close to the wind.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/homer.htm

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html

http://www.amazon.com/The-Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613

This looks fascinating. I ordered the book and am looking forward to reading it.

[Orbit]

Yeshua ben Yusef aka Yeshua ben Joseph is another possibility.

[mydisplayname]

Kenneth Humphreys has a good summary of the subject.

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

 

 

 

That was an interesting read.

[JadedAtheist]

I recall Bart Ehrman stating that most historians do not doubt the historicity of Christ and that the myth theory is mostly popular with atheists with no knowledge of the field. In saying that though, I think that at this point in time whether or not he ever existed doesn't really matter because what remains to be known of him is completely fabricated. The Greeks and Romans mythicised other historical figures as well to the point that sometimes it's hard to split the truth away from the embellishments. I read a book once called the incredible shrinking son of man, which basically tears apart the gospel narratives and shows how the themes presented are found all over the place and were hardly unique and quite probably stolen from elsewhere. With that realisation, there is nothing to be known concerning the real Christ and thus whether myth or reality, nothing is to be gained.

[Vigile]

 

I assume the myth theory claims that there was no founder of Christianity whose biography even remotely resembled the gospel stories (teaching some disciples and getting crucified)?

 

What is the evidence for and against?

Several versions of the myth theory are much stronger than that - D.M. Murdock, Alvar Ellegård and J.M. Allegro all make claims along the lines that christianity was explicitly manufactured, a narrative that isn't even a significant distortion of a real life person, but an actual intentional piece of fiction.

 

Not all mythicists go that route, but those three at the very least. 

 

 

Do they have evidence to support this?  It sounds similar to Burton Mack, who argued a political narrative in that the authors were motivated toward a message of inclusion to help organize the various peoples against Roman occupation. 

[Vigile]

I recall Bart Ehrman stating that most historians do not doubt the historicity of Christ and that the myth theory is mostly popular with atheists with no knowledge of the field.

 

Without any supporting contemporary evidence, religious or not, it seems to me this should be the default position.  It's probably an issue that will never be solved, bar new discoveries, but Ehrman's charge here sounds almost ad hom. 

 

[Ravenstar]

The myth of a dying/reborn/returning saviour began long before the 1st century. It was a motif well known by the ancients… a familiar story.. like any fairytale we know today. (example.. a hero rescuing a damsel in distress). It would have been something familiar to even the smallest child back then. The myth of a 'demigod' hero born of a human and a god was also a common theme, especially in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. (Heracles was one, Gilgamesh another)

 

Tammuz, Osiris, Adonis, Mithra, Attis, Dionysus…etc... It also echoes ancient agricultural themes as well as astronomical/astrological themes. It is absolutely related to solar deities. There is no question in my mind that it is a retelling of these.

 

That these ancient themes have been coalesced into the Jesus myth is not at all surprising.. That they came out of Judaism is not surprising as well. The influence they had from Babylon, Greece, Persia, and Egypt.. their own desire for a messiah… the occupation of Rome, captivity in Babylon and the schisms within their own religion as well as the destruction of their tribes (Judah was all that was really left by then) the formation of various sects like the Essenes. One other thing - the Jews were obsessed with having a 'history' to legitimize their 'special status' as the 'chosen of god'. It was a perfect storm, if you will.

 

I am of the mind that there may have been several 'prophets' or Rabbi's at the time, of several different sects (say from 200BCE to the common era, to be inclusive) that contributed to the Jesus story…(was one or more named Yeshua? maybe… it wasn't an uncommon name) along with ALL THE OTHER stuff… and the story gelled from there. The Christians ran with it, adding their own interpretation and creating a mythos of their own.

[mymistake]

 

I recall Bart Ehrman stating that most historians do not doubt the historicity of Christ and that the myth theory is mostly popular with atheists with no knowledge of the field.

 

Without any supporting contemporary evidence, religious or not, it seems to me this should be the default position.  It's probably an issue that will never be solved, bar new discoveries, but Ehrman's charge here sounds almost ad hom. 

 

 

 

 

Well here is the deal.  A historical guy is a positive claim.  Yes there is momentum among academics but they have always assumed the positive claim from back in the day when the authorities would burn you to death for questioning the Church authority.  Thankfully those days are past and we can think freely now.

 

If there is no evidence then we should naturally doubt the positive claim until such time as the evidence turns up.

[Orbit]

 

 

I recall Bart Ehrman stating that most historians do not doubt the historicity of Christ and that the myth theory is mostly popular with atheists with no knowledge of the field.

 

Without any supporting contemporary evidence, religious or not, it seems to me this should be the default position.  It's probably an issue that will never be solved, bar new discoveries, but Ehrman's charge here sounds almost ad hom. 

 

 

 

 

Well here is the deal.  A historical guy is a positive claim.  Yes there is momentum among academics but they have always assumed the positive claim from back in the day when the authorities would burn you to death for questioning the Church authority.  Thankfully those days are past and we can think freely now.

 

If there is no evidence then we should naturally doubt the positive claim until such time as the evidence turns up.

 

When anthropologists study ancient cultures, they necessarily work with incomplete information. It's not at all unusual to develop hypotheses about a culture based on general patterns of human culture. Mythologizing people and events is quite common across cultures. So for the anthropologist, Jesus is a hypothesis that is supported by the evidence of what other cultures do. Like archaeology, it requires a certain tolerance of ambiguity. There are some things that will never be known, but we can make educated guesses.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I recall Bart Ehrman stating that most historians do not doubt the historicity of Christ and that the myth theory is mostly popular with atheists with no knowledge of the field.

 

Without any supporting contemporary evidence, religious or not, it seems to me this should be the default position.  It's probably an issue that will never be solved, bar new discoveries, but Ehrman's charge here sounds almost ad hom. 

 

 

Ancient historians and biblical scholars work in fields that overlap.  Still, there is such a huge amount of specialization in every field that one group tends not to know or hang out with members of the other group, not to read much of their writings, etc.  Many ancient historians just assume that Acts, for example, is largely historical because they haven't worked on it.  The result is that an ancient historian who holds the mythicist position still runs the risk of damaging his/her career.