Is There Evidence Of Historical Christ From Non Religious Sources

[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. 

 

 

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. 

 

They pretend to have evidence to support it. You may recall I'm in the process of writing a very in-depth review of Murdock's The Christ Conspiracy. Turns out she doesn't have that evidence, but by golly is she going to maintain that she indeed does have it. 

[mymistake]

If the burden of proof falls on claims that Christ was intentionally manufactured wouldn't that same burden fall on those who claim Christ really existed?

 

Besides where are the mundane stories about Christ?  Every story Christ shows up in he is as mundane as a fire breathing dragon.  Historians would not accept fire breathing dragons without evidence.

[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. 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

In this case, there aren't just a few unclosed gaps, there is literally zero evidence fresher than 50-60 years after the fact and that comes from self-interested believers.  Romans were pretty good record keepers, yet there is no record of his crucifixion, even though there are records of regional crucifixions at the time IIRC.  There's no artwork, no writings, nothing.  Only old tales.

 

50-60 years is a long time.  That's like writing about someone who lived when JFK was still alive and there was no video, no photos, no writings, nothing to support any facts about him.  That's the environment the first gospels arrived in. 

 

Moreover, imagine if this person were claimed to have lead a large movement, yet there was literally no footnotes, nothing about him by any of his contemporary historians.  That's what we have with the Jesus claim. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

[Vigile]

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

 

You're ultimately right.  Sometimes it's fun to attack the details though, just like it's fun to watch a football game or whatever turns your crank. 

 

It's without question that he didn't send a horde of possessed pigs off cliff, so this is just a badminton game of sorts. 

[directionless]

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

I'm interested in this issue, because I'm very confused in my beliefs. Knowing something about Jesus (myth, Jewish faith healer, ...) helps. Being able to show a progression of changes from the origin of Christianity to its modern form helps to reassure me that Christianity is false.

[Vigile]

 

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

I'm interested in this issue, because I'm very confused in my beliefs. Knowing something about Jesus (myth, Jewish faith healer, ...) helps. Being able to show a progression of changes from the origin of Christianity to its modern form helps to reassure me that Christianity is false.

 

 

Do you think it's feasible that he walked on water, literally turned water into wine, made the blind see, raised the dead and then came back from the dead?  Do you think it's feasible that he was man-god born of a virgin and the holy ghost? 

 

If you do, why let such a little thing as historical evidence get in your way.  It's magic, right? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

 

You're ultimately right.  Sometimes it's fun to attack the details though, just like it's fun to watch a football game or whatever turns your crank. 

 

It's without question that he didn't send a horde of possessed pigs off cliff, so this is just a badminton game of sorts. 

 

I take your point.  I guess for me, knowing that had Rome not nationalized one particular brand of christianity, the religion would most likely not even survived, added to the fact that the gospels are clearly fabrications, makes the idea of a historical jesus somewhat moot.

 

I do enjoy badminton, though.

[directionless]

 

 

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

I'm interested in this issue, because I'm very confused in my beliefs. Knowing something about Jesus (myth, Jewish faith healer, ...) helps. Being able to show a progression of changes from the origin of Christianity to its modern form helps to reassure me that Christianity is false.

 

 

Do you think it's feasible that he walked on water, literally turned water into wine, made the blind see, raised the dead and then came back from the dead?  Do you think it's feasible that he was man-god born of a virgin and the holy ghost? 

 

If you do, why let such a little thing as historical evidence get in your way.  It's magic, right?

 

I'm not claiming that my approach is useful for anybody else. My goal is to convince myself that Judaism evolved, that Jesus wholeheartedly accepted Judaism, and that Christianity evolved. This would help to show that these beliefs were unlikely to be inspired or guided.

 

If Jesus was not a historical person then my goal would need to be adjusted.

[Vigile]

If you want to know what is true, you can't start with a goal.  Truth is truth, regardless of what you hope, wish or think.  This makes no sense.  What am I missing? 

[directionless]

If you want to know what is true, you can't start with a goal.  Truth is truth, regardless of what you hope, wish or think.  This makes no sense.  What am I missing?

That's a good point, but a person needs some hunches to guide the investigation. In general I want to trace the origins and evolution of Christian beliefs because I have a hunch that will help me remove that from the list of possible explanations for weird things I have seen. I want to make sure that I'm not ignoring God if he is trying to tell me something important. I'm not sure what he is trying to tell me or who he is exactly (of course I'm not sure he even exists )

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

I'm interested in this issue, because I'm very confused in my beliefs. Knowing something about Jesus (myth, Jewish faith healer, ...) helps. Being able to show a progression of changes from the origin of Christianity to its modern form helps to reassure me that Christianity is false.

 

 

Do you think it's feasible that he walked on water, literally turned water into wine, made the blind see, raised the dead and then came back from the dead?  Do you think it's feasible that he was man-god born of a virgin and the holy ghost? 

 

If you do, why let such a little thing as historical evidence get in your way.  It's magic, right?

 

I'm not claiming that my approach is useful for anybody else. My goal is to convince myself that Judaism evolved, that Jesus wholeheartedly accepted Judaism, and that Christianity evolved. This would help to show that these beliefs were unlikely to be inspired or guided.

 

If Jesus was not a historical person then my goal would need to be adjusted.

 

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century.  None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history.  Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods.  Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel?  Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm a bit simple-minded, but to me the question of whether or not a historical jesus existed seems irrelevant when I know for a fact that the gospels aren't true.  Am I missing something?

I'm interested in this issue, because I'm very confused in my beliefs. Knowing something about Jesus (myth, Jewish faith healer, ...) helps. Being able to show a progression of changes from the origin of Christianity to its modern form helps to reassure me that Christianity is false.

 

 

Do you think it's feasible that he walked on water, literally turned water into wine, made the blind see, raised the dead and then came back from the dead?  Do you think it's feasible that he was man-god born of a virgin and the holy ghost? 

 

If you do, why let such a little thing as historical evidence get in your way.  It's magic, right?

 

I'm not claiming that my approach is useful for anybody else. My goal is to convince myself that Judaism evolved, that Jesus wholeheartedly accepted Judaism, and that Christianity evolved. This would help to show that these beliefs were unlikely to be inspired or guided.

 

If Jesus was not a historical person then my goal would need to be adjusted.

 

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century.  None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history.  Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods.  Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel?  Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

 

I don't know.  I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians.  Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

[directionless]

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century.  None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history.  Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods.  Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel?  Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

I don't know.  I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians.  Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

 

I think anybody who wades through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads deserves to have at least that much time deducted from his/her time in purgatory.

[mymistake]

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century.  None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history.  Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods.  Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel?  Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

I don't know.  I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians.  Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

 

I think anybody who wades through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads deserves to have at least that much time deducted from his/her time in purgatory.

 

 

That's a fair proposal.  I'll talk to Satan about it and see what he thinks.

[BrotherJosh]

 

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century.  None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history.  Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods.  Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel?  Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

I don't know.  I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians.  Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

 

I think anybody who wades through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads deserves to have at least that much time deducted from his/her time in purgatory.

 

 

That's a fair proposal.  I'll talk to Satan about it and see what he thinks.

 

 

He's on a date with Saddam right now, best leave a message. 

[duderonomy]

On the other hand, there is evidence of Ancient Aliens. There's a whole series about it on TV and everything. Yet, some folks don't believe they were ever here.

[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.

 

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. 

 

 

I personally lean towards the myth side of things myself, not that it really matters. I think that as ficino pointed out, the status quo is a strong force that mustn't be ignored. People are kept in check with others, despite not necessarily being knowledgeable enough of the situation to really comment, and those that are can face being silenced in fear of being ousted from the "respectable" club. Therefore, I take Ehrman's statement lightly.

[Brother Jeff]

I tend to think that there was a real historical Jesus, but it doesn't really matter if he existed or not at this point in time because little, if anything, can reliably be known about him. The Jesus of the Gospels is clearly and obviously a myth, and I think only fundamentalists would dispute that fact.

 

I am extremely tired right now and my brain is fried and I am about to call it a night, but I just spent quite a while tonight reading this exchange between the author or a book entitled "Nailed: ten christian myths that show jesus never existed at all" and a reviewer very critical of the author, David Fitzgerald, and the book itself. I liked the book when I read it, and for a while I leaned strongly toward the "Jesus Myth" theory after reading Earl Doherty and David Fitzgerald. However, now I'm not so sure. Here's the link to "Nailed" on Amazon:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed-ebook/dp/B007GPG290/ref=sr_1_1

 

And, here are the links to the exchange I read tonight:

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

 

Fitzgerald's response:

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

And the reviewer's response again:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

 

Reading through all of that in one evening fried my sleep-deprived brain. I gotta think about it more tomorrow...

 

But, ultimately, I don't care if a historical Jesus existed or not. If he did, then so what? He wasn't the Jewish Messiah (Jews can prove that conclusively rather easily) and he wasn't God in the flesh. He is long dead, if indeed he did live in history. Thinking about it is fun, but ultimately it doesn't matter that much, imho... It's almost like arguing about if Star Trek or Star Wars is more awesome. Star Trek is, obviously (I've been a hardcore Trekkie since I was 13), though Star Wars is cool too. But neither one of them is for real. Similarly, Christianity is not for real (and it is easy to prove that fact) and Jesus is long dead. So it doesn't really matter....

 

Hopefully, that was at least somewhat coherent. I'm going to bed... Glory!

[mymistake]

Well it would be nice if people were not called fanatical or mocked by academics for simply doubting a positive claim with apparently no solid evidence backing it up.  The Biblical gospels are complete nonsense.  Doubting the reality of the character with magic powers seems like a reasonable starting position.  Do people get flak from academia if they suspect there was no real Hercules?  I don't ever hear debates on who was the historic Odysseus or who was the historic Achilles, or who was the real Merlin.

[Scottsman]

 

 

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century. None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history. Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods. Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel? Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

I don't know. I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians. Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

I think anybody who wades through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads deserves to have at least that much time deducted from his/her time in purgatory.

That's a fair proposal. I'll talk to Satan about it and see what he thinks.

I already asked. Best he can do is 50% on time served. 75% if you sacrifice a virgin goat.

[mydisplayname]

 

 

 

 

There may have been several insane, homeless people who were named Yeshua and lived in the region in the first century. None of them did anything meaningful enough to be mentioned in history. Remember this was a primitive culture where incoherent ranting was seen as evidence that you had been touched by the gods. Have you read the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel? Bronze Age prophets would be given mental health care if they had been born in the modern age.

I don't know. I've heard some pretty incoherent ranting from modern day christians. Everything from pentecostals babbling in the spirit to wading through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads.

I think anybody who wades through one of 1AcceptingAThiest1's threads deserves to have at least that much time deducted from his/her time in purgatory.

That's a fair proposal. I'll talk to Satan about it and see what he thinks.

I already asked. Best he can do is 50% on time served. 75% if you sacrifice a virgin goat.

 

 

Goats are expensive dude. What can I get for like a rat of which I don't know the virginity status?

[JadedAtheist]

 I tend to think that there was a real historical Jesus, but it doesn't really matter if he existed or not at this point in time because little, if anything, can reliably be known about him.

 

Exactly. I don't want to put word's in MMCs mouth, but I remember him making a really good point about this awhile ago when the topic was last discussed. Basically once we take away all the overtly bullshit stuff (the divinity, the miracles) and all the stories attributed to him that we can find parallels to in other sources of the same time period we are basically left with a description no more detailed than "some jewish dude who preached about something". Jeez, that narrowed it down 

 

At that point anyone can be the the source of the initial inspiration for the Christian movement and so could no one. Seeing that it's so overtly bullshit, I am somewhat doubtful that he existed unless we actually find something better than Josephus.

[Blood]

 

 I tend to think that there was a real historical Jesus, but it doesn't really matter if he existed or not at this point in time because little, if anything, can reliably be known about him.

 

Exactly. I don't want to put word's in MMCs mouth, but I remember him making a really good point about this awhile ago when the topic was last discussed. Basically once we take away all the overtly bullshit stuff (the divinity, the miracles) and all the stories attributed to him that we can find parallels to in other sources of the same time period we are basically left with a description no more detailed than "some jewish dude who preached about something". Jeez, that narrowed it down 

 

At that point anyone can be the the source of the initial inspiration for the Christian movement and so could no one. Seeing that it's so overtly bullshit, I am somewhat doubtful that he existed unless we actually find something better than Josephus.

 

 

Once you take away all the "overtly bullshit stuff" from any mythological figure, they also cease to be mythological figures. Just remove the she-wolf aspect of Plutarch's "Life of Romulus" and voila! You have "the historical Romulus." We can sit here all day and rationalize myths until every one of them is a real story about a real person that acquired legendary accretions over time. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 I tend to think that there was a real historical Jesus, but it doesn't really matter if he existed or not at this point in time because little, if anything, can reliably be known about him.

 

Exactly. I don't want to put word's in MMCs mouth, but I remember him making a really good point about this awhile ago when the topic was last discussed. Basically once we take away all the overtly bullshit stuff (the divinity, the miracles) and all the stories attributed to him that we can find parallels to in other sources of the same time period we are basically left with a description no more detailed than "some jewish dude who preached about something". Jeez, that narrowed it down 

 

At that point anyone can be the the source of the initial inspiration for the Christian movement and so could no one. Seeing that it's so overtly bullshit, I am somewhat doubtful that he existed unless we actually find something better than Josephus.

 

 

Once you take away all the "overtly bullshit stuff" from any mythological figure, they also cease to be mythological figures. Just remove the she-wolf aspect of Plutarch's "Life of Romulus" and voila! You have "the historical Romulus." We can sit here all day and rationalize myths until every one of them is a real story about a real person that acquired legendary accretions over time. 

 

 

 

The historical Clark Kent really was a mild mannered reporter.  Hey If we could dig through the newspaper employment records for the 1800 there were probably some who were named Kent.