Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Homeless Nutter]

Considering fantastical nature of the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth, as presented by the main piece of... uhm.. evidence - the Bible - if he really existed, he needn't have bothered his ar*e...

[Mudhammam]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

[Justtristo]

But oh please tell me about how Kenneth Humphreys is knows better than actual qualified historians. Perhaps while you're at it you can tell me all about how Ron Wyatt knows better than the likes of Israel Finkelstein and that the Egyptian chariot wheels from the Exodus are just waiting for someone to go and fish them out of the Red Sea, and not to mention that the Ark is in Turkey just waiting to be formally identified. Like I said you can't have it both ways, either Humphreys knows better than modern biblical scholars AND Wyatt knows better than modern archaeologists; OR they're both unqualified crackpots that don't know anything substantial about what they blabber on about.

Do you seriously not comprehend how monumentally absurd, stupid, irrational, nonsensical and hypocritical you sound when you pick and choose which unqualified idiot to listen to instead of the experts in the field?

And watch this everyone: Min - where's your evidence that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist?

If you want a qualified historian who argues for the Christ Myth Hypothesis, read Richard Carrier. In particular his work On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

[Redbeard The Pink]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

What a thorough redress of my statement, shit-stick. Care to be more specific? Or is ad hominem the only trick in your bag?

[Aractus]

Ok, see, here's why Christ Mythers get so pissy with people who think he was historical: we get accused of having terrible arguments and terrible evidence, and yet mainstream historians have arguments and evidence of roughly the same caliber that we have. The only advantages they have in an argument arena are the fact that they're the consensus. That's it.

No you don't, this is the evidence that you have:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.
6. Books published of questionable academic quality.

Prove otherwise.

Paul is especially interesting because if you take the writings of his that aren't forged ...

Which by volume of text is most of it. And by the way, you don't get to simply call the disputed epistles "forged". Colossians for example is disputed, but is believed to be genuinely written by Paul by most scholars. 2 Thessalonians could be either genuine or not, the debate continues. So don't go thinking you can just draw a hard line. Even if 2 Thessalonians is not written by Paul, the fact that its content is vetted by 1 Thessalonians shows that it's still a genuinely contemporary writing.

As for your argument on Josephus Ant., 20.9 is believed to be genuine and references Jesus of Nazareth, and it also references his brother James and says that James was stoned to death. Ant., 18.5 references John the Baptist and has a version of his death, and it's also genuine.

Now I want to touch on the point I've made - numerous times here - where I've cautioned against relying on publications made by people who are not qualified. I've said this quite a few times about Bart Erhman - do a search and you'll see I've always said that he's perfectly fine when he talks within his area of expertise, but that when he strays from it what he has to say is of highly questionable value. And I'll kill two birds with one stone here, as I said above you can conclude from the New Testament texts that the early Christians had believed that Jesus had supernatural powers and that he had risen from the dead and appeared to the 12.

Larry Hurtado (another critical scholar) is quite critical of one of Erhman's latest books  ...

But, whereas in some of his previous general-reader books, Ehrman drew upon his recognized expertise (especially in NT textual criticism), in this book he deals with a subject on which he is not particularly known as a contributor.  So, he draws heavily on the work of other scholars (including my own), and with commendable acknowledgement.  Unfortunately, however, on several matters he seems to rely on now discredited views, or over-simplify or misunderstand things.

But before I turn to criticism, I want to note a few more positive things.  With probably the majority of NT scholars, Ehrman emphasizes that the exalted claims about Jesus reflected in the NT (e.g., that Jesus shares divine glory, divine rule, the divine name, and is to be given universal reverence) all appeared soon in the aftermath of Jesus’ execution.  These convictions were based primarily on experiences of the risen/exalted Jesus (“visions” in Ehrman’s terms) by Jesus’ followers, which conveyed the conviction that God had raised Jesus from death and had uniquely exalted him as Christ and Lord.


Ehrman (rightly in my view) also notes that these lofty claims about Jesus reflected in the NT seem to have erupted very early, so early that they are presupposed as widely shared already by the time Paul wrote his letters (from ca. 50 CE and thereafter).  In a commendable example of changing his mind, Ehrman acknowledges that prior to immersing himself in the evidence and scholarly analysis for this book, he had assumed a much slower and more drawn-out process, but was driven to conclude that these remarkable Christological beliefs erupted much earlier and much more fully than he had thought.  It’s always reassuring when a scholar admits to learning something new, and even to changing his/her mind.

Moreover, Ehrman argues (again, rightly in my view), that the early claim that Jesus is Messiah, requires us to conclude also that Jesus had excited such hopes about himself during his own ministry.  Indeed, this was likely the reason that the Roman authority moved against him and crucified him.  (“Messiah” = typically a divinely appointed ruler/deliverer, a claim that would have been seen as sedition against Rome.)  As Ehrman observes, resurrection by itself would not have connoted that Jesus is Messiah.  But, if Jesus’ followers had held such a hope during his ministry, then Jesus’ resurrection would quite readily have been taken as God’s validation of Jesus as Messiah.  (This, by the way, is basically the argument made by the great Yale NT scholar, Nils Dahl, decades ago.)

I think that part sums up neatly what I've been saying here. And here's a comment and response on his blog:

Rich Griese


David,

I think that before we can begin to decide what “the historical jesus” might have said, we have to determine if we can demonstrate that such a character ever existed. I have not seen that done to date.

Cheers! RichGriese.NET

    larryhurtado

    Rich, I’ve engaged your repeatedly stated views before. No one. No one in scholarly circles dealing with ancient Judaism and early Christianity, of any religious or non-religious persuasion holds the view that Jesus never existed. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own truth.
    Let’s move on.

[Aractus]

Here's some more from Hurtado. And I can quote others, I already gave you an audio of Bart arguing with an ill-informed atheist, and there are plenty of other scholars who have said the same thing: that no serious historian qualified to interpret the evidence doubts the existence of Jesus.

1. “Sandwiches” (Once again, I’ll express my puzzlement that people are reluctant to identify themselves): Thanks for the link. My only comments in response to the “vidar” posting about me are (1) that it’s hardly “intellectual bullying” to point out that those trained in a given subject don’t support a given assertion; and (2) people have a right to their own opinions but not to their own “facts”. So, e.g., it is simply NOT the case that Paul’s reference to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Gal 1:19 is regarded as a later insertion by many scholars. There’s no textual uncertainty at that point, no basis for the claim in any case. Paul also refers to “brothers of the Lord” in 1 Cor 9:5, and again there’s no textual uncertainty there. This is simply one of the instances where the evangelists of the “mythicist” camp repeat erroneous claims (and/or invent them?). Refuting such is what makes it all “wearying”.

2. Neil,
I see no impugning in my statement that you quote. I asked you a question, which you didn’t answer: In other matters, would you take the word of trained figures in a given field (e.g., your health care) or canvass opinions on internet sites for which no such trained figures vouch? What I said about “authority” in scholarship is simply the way it is. Scholarship involves hard work and proving yourself to pretty damned critical people.
I don’t get what question you think I’ve side-stepped. Do scholars have a public responsibility? Of course they do. Believing that is the major reason why I set up this blog site, Neil. To try to bring to a wider public informed scholarship on the New Testament and early Christianity. It’s perhaps the case that the pressures of research and scholarly publication intended to advance knowledge in the field (which means having to publish in refereed journals and books, and presenting your work before other scholars in conference settings, etc.) leaves little time for writing for the general public. And in the UK, the only scholarly publications that count for national assessment purposes are those directed to other scholars, not “popular” level publication.
The result can be that scholars can seem cut off, aloof, or even a closed shop talking to one another, I agree. But, can I say, it doesn’t encourage scholars to bring their knowledge to a wider public when one gets the sort of intense resistance that I’ve had on historical Jesus matters in the last few days. I’m tough-skinned and dedicated to public understanding of the field, but I rather suspect some colleagues might shy away from the fray!

3. Neil, “there you go again,” making unfair and misleading accusations. I tire of this, Neil. And you should be ashamed. “Question-begging responses” and “appeals to authority rather that logical validiy”?? Really? So, you’ve completed missed the data and explanations that I’ve tried patiently to provide over the last week or so? Are you sure?? And the bibliographical references, you’ve now studied them and found them all the same? Really? Is it an “intellectual put-down” to note that an argument is invalid, that the data has been misrepresented or ignored, and that a claim that the majority opinion of experts is wrong is made by someone who hasn’t demonstrated the expertise to make a reliable judgement in the subject? It’s one thing to ask for an explanation of something, Neil, something I’m happy to do. It’s quite another to be accused of the various things you and others have lodged against scholars, and, when I give an explanation then to be assailed for giving it.
As for historical Jesus studies, Neil, once again I ask you to see if you can distinguish between the particular constructions of this or that scholar (which often differ) and the agreed basis on which such scholar argue with one another (which is that there is a historical figure to try to characterize rightly). Scholars differ over how rightly to characterize Abraham Lincoln, but they agree that he did exist, and that there is something to try to capture. So, I simply ask you one question, Neil: Do you really want to understand the field of Christian origins, and how scholars go about it, or do you wish to take insufficiently-informed pot-shots from the sidelines? I have little interest in engaging the latter.

4. Neil, you can’t use expressions such as “intellectual put-down” in attempting to chide me in one comment and then claim that you didn’t mean it in the next one! As for my own comments, if someone insists on denying what a body of scholarship holds, and does so without giving a superior analysis of the relevant data, then isn’t that a good bit like taking a “flat earth” stance? Come on, Neil. The analogy holds.
To answer (yet again, and hopefully for the last time!) your last question: The expertise you need to make a reliable judgement on whether Jesus was or wasn’t a historical figure is the expertise that scholars have to work up to present any judgement on the matter that might win the assent or at least respect of scholarly peers: You need a damn good knowledge of the languages of the original texts (so you can speak reliably to what they say and not be reliant on others); you need a damn good knowledge of the other historical sources of the time; you need a damn good familiarity with the intricate analysis of key materials (such as the Gospel tradition and its literary and rhetorical features and earmarks of provenance); you need a damn good knowledge of the ancient Jewish religious, social, and historical setting, and of the larger historical and religious environment; you need to hone analytical and judgement skills and have them tested and challenged by accomplished scholars; and you need them to publish work that wins the respect of competent scholars, demonstrating an ability to mount a successful case and withstand the (often fierce) criticism of other scholars. These are the sorts of things needed to have your judgement on matters taken seriously and possibly influential, Neil, if by “reliable” we man a judgment that doesn’t just satisfy you but that wins the respect of people with the cometence to assess it.
Now, does it matter that of those with this high degree of training overwhelmingly (I’d say unanimously but there’s sure to be some exception, as there almost always seems to be) the judgement is that the best conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth lived, circulated in Roman Palestine, developed a certain following, and generated a sufficient opposition that it led to his execution. Should it matter to you that this is so, that this is the judgement of those (and I emphasize of various personal stances, including Jewish scholars, atheists or non-religious, as well as various Christian stances) with the sort of expertise that I describe? That’s for you to decide. But don’t try to justify a reluctance to accept this view as if you were doing so on some superior grounds. You haven’t offered anything such, but have thus far simply demurred from the scholarly view.

5. Dear “Brettongarcia”, since you posit your view in a straightforward manner, I presume that you’ll take no offence if I do likewise. I’m afraid that your view of matters is seriously out of touch with reality. Or perhaps you drink with people who don’t represent historical scholarship on these matters. In fact, it’s only a rump-group with a stubborn refusal to accept the verdict of historians that (re)asserts claims that have long since been demolished. Faith & piety have NOTHING to do with it. Scholars competent in the relevant subject, of various faith and no-faith stances, share “the perception that Jesus was historically real”. Get your facts from scholars, not from self-apointed “experts” unrecognized by scholars in the field.

6. Sorry, I don’t do percentages when it comes to historical judgements. I simply join practically the entire company of qualified historians in judging that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.

7. If the most persuasive basis for the mythicist position is the alleged lack of evidence from “the epistles”, then that’s easily refuted, as I’ve indicated in other comments in recent days. In fact, there are a number of indications in Paul’s undisputed letters that he knows Jesus was a real historical figure. I take it from your comment that your claim is the sort of thing you find persuasive in these authors’ works. If so, they’ve been refuted for decades.

8. Dear Bobby,
The NT writers certainly saw Jesus through the lens of the events that they saw as his resurrection and the revelation (to them) of his exalted significance. But it would be uncritical and naive to fail to recognize that the Gospels are what I have called “renditions” of the figure of Jesus, portraying him through the lens of their “post-Easter” faith. This seems especially obvious in the Gospel of John. However difficult it may be to get back to the “historical” Jesus (i.e., how Jesus acted and spoke during his earthly lifetime), it is in principle a reasonable question.

[Pizza]

Josephus has been useless to historicity claims since the early 1800s.

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

I honestly don't know what would count as evidence for a historical figure to mythers since you're only allow to quote minority scholars they agree with them. If we can't trust the majority of scholars why the fuck should we trust Carrier and friends? Seriously we as layman have no way to fact check half the claims they make, which is why appeal to expert consensus is an important rule of thumb. If most scientists say the Earth is Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, I believe them as a rule of thumb.

[Iroscato]

My personal view is that Jesus was an amalgamation of several pre-Christian figures who often shared multiple traits such as the virgin birth, being born around the winter solstice, being resurrected and so on, and whose origins lie in repurposed pagan mythology.
Could there have been a Jewish traveller 2000 years ago with some upstart ideas? Quite possibly.
But he did not perform miracles.
He was not born of a virgin.
He did not die and come back several days later.
He was not the creator and ruler of the cosmos in human form.

Ultimately, when you take away the absurdity of his "miracles", all you're left with is some scruffy guy who annoyed the Romans a bit. Hardly cuts an impressive figure, now does he?

Day after day, it still amuses and bemuses me that grown adults still believe these infantile, pathetic myths - moreover, build their entire lives around a collection of stories about a magic man who loves us lots and lots, except the ones he burns in eternal torment, because fuck those guys.

[Minimalist]

The evidence is:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.

No, Danny.  You don't get it...and probably never will.

There is one original story.  Mark.  The others are fanfics... extensions of the original by later authors writing for different audiences. 

"Paul" if he is real speaks of a non-earthly jesus.  "Paul" knows nothing of Pilate, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Caiaphas, etc.  That wasn't part of his story. He does not describe Jesus as a miracle worker, healer or teacher. Paul blames Jesus' death on Satan and demons, rather than the Roman government.  That wasn't part of his story, either.  Somewhere along the lines somebody noticed so when they forged the pastoral epistles they had someone write in 2 Timothy that Pilate and the Jews were involved...but only the dumbest of fundies thinks that 2 Timothy is written by whoever wrote the so-called authentic epistles of "Paul."

There are NO clear first century texts.  Much is wishful thinking or, worse, later forgery by the eventual winners.  We have no evidence that any Greco-Roman writer heard of Jesus until c 185.

The heretical writings are exactly that.  We know even less about them than we do of the canonical shit.

Don't start with Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.  We've been down that road before.  If you wish to accept that shit, go ahead.  Don't pretend to be a rational human being while doing it.

Modern peer-reviewed publications are fine as long as they agree with you.  If they don't you pull the No True Scotsman routine and claim they are not "real scholars."  That disqualifies you.  You are too invested in believing in your bullshit.

[Mudhammam]

That pretty much gives the entirety of Pink's erroneous rant away.

Carrier seems to have inspired a lot of mindless drones who seem to think that simply dismissing texts on the basis of their preconceived theory is a scientific approach to historical reconstruction.

What a thorough redress of my statement, shit-stick. 

Not really, seeing as that a simple perusal of the abundance of scholarly work available online would inform even the most amateur of historians that your statement is either incredibly naive or stupidly dishonest.