Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No we don't. Best we can do is vague and near contemporary (although only a few years after his purported* death). We have a reference to 'The Arabs of Muhammad', and another to 'a saracen prophet'.

This is pretty good evidence imo (and slightly better than that of Jesus), as near contemporary evidence is often all we have and that it's independent makes it much better, but ultimately has some of the same issues that mythicists see as problematic with Jesus.

If we discovered some new near contemporary Roman sources from c35AD that referred to 'the followers of Jesus' and 'the Jewish prophet' no doubt mythicists would say 'not contemporary eyewitness testimony', 'refers to Christians not Jesus', 'the Jewish prophet could have been anyone'.

I was actually thinking about independent, contemporary sources of accounts of the conquest of Syria by the muslim army lead by Mohammed. If memory serves me right, we have fragments of documents from non-muslim sources from that period, corroborating it. Sounds like pretty good evidence to me... But it's been a while since I read about it. Perhaps I'm mistaken or remembering incorrectly. Frankly I'm not interested enough to look it up.

The idea that we should expect high quality, independent contemporary eyewitness testimony to exist and if it doesn't then this is a major problem is based on an unrealistic standard.​

This, I don't really agree with.
I'll leave the "high quality" part in the middle though.

However, considering the Jesus character... If this character really did all the things that the Bible says he did, then I would absolutely expect some independent contemporary sources making mention of it. Surely such events would not go unnoticed... And Romans were kind of obsessed with documenting everything. Off course now I'm not really talking about a "historical jesus" but rather the "supernatural jesus".


The fact that there is none of such documentation, tells me that IF a historical jesus existed, he was very insignificant.​

 

[Augustus]

I was actually thinking about independent, contemporary sources of accounts of the conquest of Syria by the muslim army lead by Mohammed. If memory serves me right, we have fragments of documents from non-muslim sources from that period, corroborating it. Sounds like pretty good evidence to me... But it's been a while since I read about it. Perhaps I'm mistaken or remembering incorrectly.

The problem is that invasion of the Levant happened 2 years after Muhammad's purported death (according to Islamic sources), and the sources post-date this.

However, considering the Jesus character... If this character really did all the things that the Bible says he did, then I would absolutely expect some independent contemporary sources making mention of it. Surely such events would not go unnoticed... And Romans were kind of obsessed with documenting everything. Off course now I'm not really talking about a "historical jesus" but rather the "supernatural jesus".

The fact that there is none of such documentation, tells me that IF a historical jesus existed, he was very insignificant.

The lack of eyewitness testimony is a problem for the historicity of the Gospel narratives, it isn't for a historical Jesus though. The evidence is pretty much exactly what you would expect for a historical Jesus as a founder of a movement that grew rapidly after his death.

Only a tiny percentage of historical documents survive so even records of some major events which would have been covered a lot in their day no longer exist, never mind a minor to moderately popular Jewish preacher from Nazareth.

 

[lukethethird]

The problem is that invasion of the Levant happened 2 years after Muhammad's purported death (according to Islamic sources), and the sources post-date this.



The lack of eyewitness testimony is a problem for the historicity of the Gospel narratives, it isn't for a historical Jesus though. The evidence is pretty much exactly what you would expect for a historical Jesus as a founder of a movement that grew rapidly after his death.

Only a tiny percentage of historical documents survive so even records of some major events which would have been covered a lot in their day no longer exist, never mind a minor to moderately popular Jewish preacher from Nazareth.

The notion of a Jewish preacher from Nazareth comes from the gospels, but the same gospels declare that this Jewish preacher was far from being just moderately popular. Considering the certainty of those that advocate an historical Jesus theory, one would expect the evidence for such a theory to be overwhelming, but is that the case?

 

[Augustus]

The notion of a Jewish preacher from Nazareth comes from the gospels, but the same gospels declare that this Jewish preacher was far from being just moderately popular.

It's a hagiography not a work of modern academic scholarship. Even 'history' back then wasn't striving for objective accuracy, never mind hagiography.

Considering the certainty of those that advocate an historical Jesus theory, one would expect the evidence for such a theory to be overwhelming, but is that the case?

Pretty much, yes. The totality of the evidence is far better explained by a historical person than a pure myth.

 

[lukethethird]

It's a hagiography not a work of modern academic scholarship. Even 'history' back then wasn't striving for objective accuracy, never mind hagiography.



Pretty much, yes. The totality of the evidence is far better explained by a historical person than a pure myth.

Hagiography in one sentence and totality of the evidence in the next. Anyways, using a conclusion to explain evidence is doing it backwards, this could be a problem. Evidence should lead us to a conclusion, not the other way around.

 

[Muffled]

It was about Hezekiah, Ahaz' son, not Jesus.

I believe that is a common misconception.

 

[Augustus]

Hagiography in one sentence and totality of the evidence in the next.

Yes, different sentences often contain different words combined in manner to communicate something.

Evidence should lead us to a conclusion, not the other way around.

That's what I'm saying, the evidence leads to the conclusion that it is far more probable that Jesus the man existed.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe that is a common misconception.

Sadly, there are many misconceptions in the Bible. If only it was better written.

 

[Milton Platt]

I can give you reasons for the resurrection. It's a fine book with good evidences and compelling logic.

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Then first step is demonstrating that miracles happen, and that there is a god involved if they did.

I perused a few pages on Amazon. I don't feel the need to spend money on yet another apologetic book that trots out the same old weak arguments.
Why don't you give me the two or three top arguments that make you think this book is any different.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, different sentences often contain different words combined in manner to communicate something.



That's what I'm saying, the evidence leads to the conclusion that it is far more probable that Jesus the man existed.

"Far more probable" would require sufficient evidence to support such a claim, so far there is no agreement as to whom this Jesus even was, so it isn't saying anything to claim that Jesus was historical. Historical Jesus theories fail on many levels which in and of themselves do not rule out an historical Jesus, it's just that we have no way of knowing if Jesus was historical with the information available to us.

 

[Augustus]

"Far more probable" would require sufficient evidence to support such a claim, so far there is no agreement as to whom this Jesus even was, so it isn't saying anything to claim that Jesus was historical. Historical Jesus theories fail on many levels which in and of themselves do not rule out an historical Jesus, it's just that we have no way of knowing if Jesus was historical with the information available to us.

Ancient historiography is always a question of probabilities, and historical Jesus should be treated the same as any other historical person. Mythicists want to treat him as a special case, insisting unless there is proof, he's a myth (or equally likely to be a myth).

Multiple independent near contemporary sources that believe he was a person and write of many others who believe he was a person is generally considered very good evidence someone existed. We don't start from the assumption that people written about close to their lives are 50/50 myth/real just because there are no "contemporary eyewitness accounts", especially when we wouldn't expect any to exist anyway.

Aspects of a story that are difficult to imagine anyone fabricating if they were not true are generally considered evidence in favour of their veracity.

The Gospel narratives clearly seem to be worked around an actual person rather than a blank slate (Nazareth/Bethlehem, the fact that he is a terrible fit for the messiah, etc.).

Fast growing cults generally start around a central figure.

Mythical god cults don't emerge concurrently with the purported, and very human, life of the central figure. AFAIK, a mythical Jesus would be unprecedented in this regard (if not, can you think of any examples?)

No near contemporary figures doubt his existence even though they would have had great reason to if it were true (and the Romans kept records which could have been checked)

etc.

So, yes, I believe the evidence makes it far more probable he existed as I don't apply special pleading to this case and treat it the same as any other bit of ancient history.

 

[lukethethird]

Ancient historiography is always a question of probabilities, and historical Jesus should be treated the same as any other historical person.

Assuming that Jesus is an historical figure.

Mythicists want to treat him as a special case, insisting unless there is proof, he's a myth (or equally likely to be a myth).

I am not a mythicist but at the same time we know the myth, the question is whether there was an historical Jesus behind it all. How can we know without evidence let alone proof?

Multiple independent near contemporary sources that believe he was a person and write of many others who believe he was a person is generally considered very good evidence someone existed.

No one outside of the New Testament authors wrote of Jesus in the first century with the possibility of one lone author by the name of Josephus, who wasn't born until after the Jesus in question would have died.

We don't start from the assumption that people written about close to their lives are 50/50 myth/real just because there are no "contemporary eyewitness accounts", especially when we wouldn't expect any to exist anyway.

We can't assume anything about such supposed people.

Aspects of a story that are difficult to imagine anyone fabricating if they were not true are generally considered evidence in favour of their veracity.

Fiction is written all the time and has been with us for eons.

The Gospel narratives clearly seem to be worked around an actual person rather than a blank slate (Nazareth/Bethlehem, the fact that he is a terrible for for the messiah, etc.).

Fast growing cults generally start around a central figure.

Mythical god cults don't emerge concurrently with the purported, and very human, life of the central figure. AFAIK, a mythical Jesus would be unprecedented in this regard (if not, can you think of any examples?)

Really? Osiris, Horus, Isis, Zeus, Hades, Cybele, Poseidon, Athena, just to name a few.

No near contemporary figures doubt his existence even though they would have had great reason to if it were true (and the Romans kept records which could have been checked)

etc.

So, yes, I believe the evidence makes it far more probable he existed as I don't apply special pleading to this case and treat it the same as any other bit of ancient history.

If you could provide said evidence it would be helpful. What unknown people may or may not have believed a long time ago is not evidence of anything, besides, no one that ever wrote about Jesus ever met the guy, so no one back then would have any way of knowing whether an historical figure was behind the myth that they heard about or not, just as we have no way of knowing now. I don't know and neither do you.

 

[Augustus]

I am not a mythicist but at the same time we know the myth, the question is whether there was an historical Jesus behind it all. How can we know without evidence let alone proof?

There is evidence. You are demanding a different standard of evidence for a historical Jesus than other historical figures though.

As for proof, there is very little proof about any historical figures in the ancient world, just stuff we attach varying degrees of probability to.

No one outside of the New Testament authors wrote of Jesus in the first century with the possibility of one lone author by the name of Josephus, who wasn't born until after the Jesus in question would have died.

There are potentially a couple of other minor sources too.

If we start discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.

People wrote about Christians though, we know Nero punished Christians within a few decades of Jesus purported death, so we know there was a rapidly growing movement of people who believed he existed that emerged around about the time of his purported life.

If we look at all movements that emerged around a purported central figure and grew rapidly around about their purported human lifetime (which rules out almost all cults based on purely mythical figures), would you agree that the vast majority of these central figures likely existed?

Really? Osiris, Horus, Isis, Zeus, Hades, Cybele, Poseidon, Athena, just to name a few.

Mythical cults like these did not emerge concurrent with the central figure's very human life and lifespan.

Jesus' story reads like a hagiography: a normal life but with exaggerated features. None of these figure's stories read like a hagiography of a human, but archetypal god mythology. Their central figures have ancient origins, not (historically) contemporary ones.

I don't know and neither do you.

Can say the same about the majority of ancient history. We work with what we have and try to identify what is most probable given the evidence.

Do you generally apply the rule that anything from history we can't prove 100% is equally likely to be a myth?

 

[lukethethird]

There is evidence. You are demanding a different standard of evidence for a historical Jesus than other historical figures though.

As for proof, there is very little proof about any historical figures in the ancient world, just stuff we attach varying degrees of probability to.



There are potentially a couple of other minor sources too.

If we start discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.

People wrote about Christians though, we know Nero punished Christians within a few decades of Jesus purported death, so we know there was a rapidly growing movement of people who believed he existed that emerged around about the time of his purported life.

If we look at all movements that emerged around a purported central figure and grew rapidly around about their purported human lifetime (which rules out almost all cults based on purely mythical figures), would you agree that the vast majority of these central figures likely existed?



Mythical cults like these did not emerge concurrent with the central figure's very human life and lifespan.

Jesus' story reads like a hagiography: a normal life but with exaggerated features. None of these figure's stories read like a hagiography of a human, but archetypal god mythology. Their central figures have ancient origins, not (historically) contemporary ones.



Can say the same about the majority of ancient history. We work with what we have and try to identify what is most probable given the evidence.

Do you generally apply the rule that anything from history we can't prove 100% is equally likely to be a myth?

I am not saying Jesus was a mythical figure, I am saying we don't know that he was a mythical figure, and we have no way of knowing if he was an historical figure either because all we have are religious texts.

As for "discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.", yes, in those cases we can't say much about any so called historical figures, and Jesus is no exception. No non-Christians wrote about Christians in the first century, so much for the religion growing rapidly because no one seemed to have noticed them, and we don't know that Nero persecuted Christians because that information didn't come about until well into the 2nd century without any references to sources, it was a belief passed on of some Christians at that time for all we know. Contemporaries that did write about the fire failed to mention anything about Christians.

You claim evidence but you haven't provided any, it would be helpful so that I too could believe one way or another but so far I remain agnostic on the question of Jesus historicity and myth.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If we start discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.

Unsolicited trivia:

• One of the more or less interesting consequences of rejecting a historical Jesus, IMO, is that the rejection takes an ax to Islam, Baha'i: If Jesus never was, who's going to break the news to Allah, Muslims, and the Baha'i? And while that ax is swinging, somebody's going to go after Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[lukethethird]

Unsolicited trivia:

• One of the more or less interesting consequences of rejecting a historical Jesus, IMO, is that the rejection takes an ax to Islam, Baha'i: If Jesus never was, who's going to break the news to Allah, Muslims, and the Baha'i? And while that ax is swinging, somebody's going to go after Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Surely no one rejects the historical Adam and Eve et al.

 

[Augustus]

As for "discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.", yes, in those cases we can't say much about any so called historical figures, and Jesus is no exception.

If this is your position then you are basically rejecting the entire field of pre-modern history. Almost no pre-modern history was written by disinterested parties aiming to convey objective truth.

Almost all 'history' served a purpose.

No non-Christians wrote about Christians in the first century, so much for the religion growing rapidly because no one seemed to have noticed them,

No surviving non-Christian sources write of them in the first century, but then again, only a tiny percentage of sources survive.

However, multiple non-Christian sources, some like Suetonius referencing earlier periods of time write about Christians in the early 2nd C. That these sources survive makes it almost certain there were many more sources written that don't survive.

Countless things from history are only known about because later people referenced earlier events based on sources that no longer exist today.

Tacitus was also a Senator and would have had access to Roman records.

We have no contemporary source for Hannibal who tried to destroy the Roman Empire. So much for the fearsome enemy of Rome during the Punic Wars because no one seemed to notice him!

2 of the main sources for the Punic wars were written centuries later based on sources that existed then, but no longer exist today.

Rapidly growing is also relative. Before modern communication and transportation technology and when most people were illiterate and books cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars, spreading a religion from nothing to the point where the powers that be start to notice it across a wide geographic area takes many years.

That we have references to Christians during the time of Nero is evidence the movement was growing relatively rapidly.

You claim evidence but you haven't provided any,

Why do you think secular academic historians consider it evidence if it is not evidence? Agreed it's not 100% proof, but if you don't accept it even counts as evidence then no wonder you are 'agnostic'.

When you reject the methods of historical enquiry then you're basically saying we can't know anything about that era with 100% certainty so why bother looking at it and trying to decide what is most plausible given what we have.

There is almost nothing from that era that couldn't have been made up, modified by later writers, etc.

 

[lukethethird]

If this is your position then you are basically rejecting the entire field of pre-modern history. Almost no pre-modern history was written by disinterested parties aiming to convey objective truth.

Almost all 'history' served a purpose.



No surviving non-Christian sources write of them in the first century, but then again, only a tiny percentage of sources survive.

However, multiple non-Christian sources, some like Suetonius referencing earlier periods of time write about Christians in the early 2nd C. That these sources survive makes it almost certain there were many more sources written that don't survive.

Countless things from history are only known about because later people referenced earlier events based on sources that no longer exist today.

Tacitus was also a Senator and would have had access to Roman records.

We have no contemporary source for Hannibal who tried to destroy the Roman Empire. So much for the fearsome enemy of Rome during the Punic Wars because no one seemed to notice him!

2 of the main sources for the Punic wars were written centuries later based on sources that existed then, but no longer exist today.

Rapidly growing is also relative. Before modern communication and transportation technology and when most people were illiterate and books cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars, spreading a religion from nothing to the point where the powers that be start to notice it across a wide geographic area takes many years.

That we have references to Christians during the time of Nero is evidence the movement was growing relatively rapidly.




Why do you think secular academic historians consider it evidence if it is not evidence? Agreed it's not 100% proof, but if you don't accept it even counts as evidence then no wonder you are 'agnostic'.

When you reject the methods of historical enquiry then you're basically saying we can't know anything about that era with 100% certainty so why bother looking at it and trying to decide what is most plausible given what we have.

There is almost nothing from that era that couldn't have been made up, modified by later writers, etc.

Contemporaries of Hannibal wrote about him and their extant copies were made full use of by later historians whose writings still survive. We know these contemporary historians by name, and the historians that referred to them as their sources, whereas Jesus was completely without any contemporaries so you have lost all credibility by comparing what we have on Jesus, which is nothing, to what we have on Hannibal, and you really shouldn't be commenting on history since you are completely unaware as to how information survives.

You make blanket statements about what we know about people of history without realizing that its a case by case basis. Not having evidence for Jesus as an historical person in no way changes what we do have on other people of antiquity, something that is apparently lost on you.

The unknown author of the gospel of Mark could very well have had an actual historical figure in mind when he wrote his storied account, we just have no way of knowing.

 

[Augustus]

Contemporaries of Hannibal wrote about him and their extant copies were made full use of by later historians whose writings still survive. We know these contemporary historians by name, and the historians that referred to them as their sources, whereas Jesus was completely without any contemporaries so you have lost all credibility by comparing what we have on Jesus, which is nothing, to what we have on Hannibal, and you really shouldn't be commenting on history since you are completely unaware as to how information survives.

You badly missed the point, I'm not 'comparing' era defining events of immense importance that posed an existential threat to Rome with a new religious movement followed by a tiny percentage of the population that wouldn't even be expected to generate much attention in the first place

It was an example of how little of the historical record survives.

"No surviving non-Christian sources write of them in the first century, but then again, only a tiny percentage of sources survive.

However, multiple non-Christian sources, some like Suetonius referencing earlier periods of time write about Christians in the early 2nd C. That these sources survive makes it almost certain there were many more sources written that don't survive.

Countless things from history are only known about because later people referenced earlier events based on sources that no longer exist today."

It is highly improbable that the non-Christian sources that do survive are the earliest ones written.

You make blanket statements about what we know about people of history without realizing that its a case by case basis. Not having evidence for Jesus as an historical person in no way changes what we do have on other people of antiquity, something that is apparently lost on you.

Now you're just making things up.

I was responding to your blanket statement:

"As for "discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.", yes, in those cases we can't say much about any so called historical figures, and Jesus is no exception."

 

[lukethethird]

You badly missed the point, I'm not 'comparing' era defining events of immense importance that posed an existential threat to Rome with a new religious movement followed by a tiny percentage of the population that wouldn't even be expected to generate much attention in the first place

It was an example of how little of the historical record survives.

"No surviving non-Christian sources write of them in the first century, but then again, only a tiny percentage of sources survive.

However, multiple non-Christian sources, some like Suetonius referencing earlier periods of time write about Christians in the early 2nd C. That these sources survive makes it almost certain there were many more sources written that don't survive.

Countless things from history are only known about because later people referenced earlier events based on sources that no longer exist today."

It is highly improbable that the non-Christian sources that do survive are the earliest ones written.



Now you're just making things up.

I was responding to your blanket statement:

"As for "discounting near contemporary sources written by followers and admirers of people, we would barely be able to say anything about any historical figures.", yes, in those cases we can't say much about any so called historical figures, and Jesus is no exception."

The notion of "near contemporary" is meaningless, it's a subjective exercise in that "near" can mean whatever one wants it to mean. What you are referring to is non-sourced material, unless you consider spiritually inspired to count as a source, as in The New Testament, and you are comparing that with sourced based information that we have about Hannibal, you don't seem to be making the distinction.

You stated that we don't have primary sources for Hannibal while neglecting to state that we do have secondary sources that had extant copies of primary sources at their disposal, and we know they used them. We don't have primary nor secondary source material for an historical Jesus, we just have religious texts and Johnny come lately historians. Are you aware of the distinction or are you covering up in order to find a place for an historical Jesus?

Why no let the chips fall where they may, what's wrong with not knowing?