As most of the readers of this blog know by now, in my new book, Did Jesus Exist, I take on the claims made by that vociferous group of nay-sayers who call themselves “mythicists.” For those still not familiar with this rare breed, it comprises a growing cadre of writers – many of whom have published books (Acharya S [a.k.a D. M. Murdoch], Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Tom Harpur, Robert Price, Thomas Thompson, and many others), and many more of whom are a loud presence on the Internet (as you can see for yourself; just do a couple of obvious Google searches) – who all claim that Jesus of Nazareth did not actually exist, but that he was invented by the early Christians out of whole cloth to be a savior, comparable to the divine men “known” in pagan religions.
In my book I show why this view is completely wrong. Whether we like it or not (some of us do, some of us don’t) Jesus certainly existed. What he was like is another story.
One of the most common claims of the mythicists is that there were numerous other divine men in Jesus’ day who were very similar – in fact, in almost every respect – to Jesus.
A terrific example of an exaggerated set of mythicist claims comes in a classic in the field, the 1875 book of Kersey Graves, The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ, which has been reprinted for wide circulation here in recent years. A number of untrained mythicists (i.e., those who have not actually done graduate work in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, classics,and so on) simply take Graves’s word for it when he claims that Jesus was just like all the other invented figures of his day.
Early on his “study” Graves states his overarching thesis:
Researches into oriental history reveal the remarkable fact that stories of incarnate Gods answering to and resembling the miraculous character of Jesus Christ have been prevalent in most if not all principal religious heathen nations of antiquity; and the accounts and narrations of some of these deific incarnations bear such a striking resemblance to that of the Christian Savior – not only in their general features but in some cases in the most minute details, from the legend of the immaculate conception to that of the crucifixion, and subsequent ascension into heaven – that one might almost be mistaken for the other. (p. 29)
Grave goes on to list thirty five such divine figures, naming them as Chrisna of Hindostan, Budha Sakia of India; Baal of Phenicia; Thammuz of Syria; Mithra of Persia, Cadmus of Greece; Mohamud of Arabia; and so on. Already the modern, informed reader sees that there are going to be problems. Buddha, Cadmus, and Mohammed? These had lives that were remarkably like Jesus’, down to the details? But as Graves goes on to contend:
These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of Gods; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian’s Bible to Jesus Christ; many of them, like him, are reported to have been crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine, and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian’s savior.” (pp. 30-31)
Virtually everything Graves says is wrong.
Take the idea that divine men in the ancient pagan world were thought to be born of virigins. It’s not true. What is true is that remarkable men – demigods, emperors, powerful figures of all kinds – were often thought to have been miraculously born. But it was not because their mothers did not have sex—which is what the early Christians said about Jesus and his mother. On the contrary, the mothers of these pagan divine men certainly did have sex. In fact, they had sex with a god to conceive their miraculous children. One might say they had divine sex.
The god Zeus was well known for his love of mortal women, and he was thought to have made a number of them pregnant by various means – never by allowing her to remain physically untouched, however. ….
If you would like to see a couple of examples, I go into greater detail as I continue this post on my membership site. Please join!
MAY
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
It’s well known that Graves’ scholarship is mediocre at best, so a refutation of his work is somewhat of a straw man for debunking the mythicist position. As a Religious Studies major, I’m most interested in seeing a sound refutation of Dr. Price’s latest tome “The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems”; Price throws down a pretty solid argument for Jesus as a mythic hero.
While Price’s work may be considered radical by today’s standards, you must admit that there’s always going to be discomfort and disagreement on the cutting edge of any theory.
Yes, dealing with Graves is like shooting fish in a barrel. Odd that mythicists sometimes still take his line.
I do deal with Price directly in my book.
in the name of Allah,
I like this of ye . I add that neither Jesus nor Mohammad were divine man, I am a Muslim, they only were Servants, prophets and Messengers of God.
it does exist that many deny if Jesus was born from a Woman only miraculously, by a word of God, not by sex or so, I only say to them don’t go to Bible to know what’s right, prove or disprove it(coz Scholars like Dr.Bart know why!), but go to Quran, ye will find that event ascribed there, and will find this verse:
قُل لَّئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَىٰ أَن يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَـٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا ﴿٨٨﴾
Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.” (88)
it’s our only proof that Jesus existed and was born in like way. and it’s a challenge from God to all, why don’t ye pay some attention?!
Mohammad, according to the Qur’an, the Torah and the Injil (New Testament texts) were still flawless even in Mohammed’s time, both pre and post Meccan era. The Qur’an refers to the Christian texts the “Word of God” (Surah 2:75) and that the Injil was “sent down to you, from Allah” (Surah 5:68). And, Surah 5:46 states that the Injil (Gospel) was given to Jesus by Allah. However, how the New Testament texts could have been given to Jesus is unknown, since the New Testament texts were not even penned until at least 20 years after Jesus death, resurrection and ascension. However, the Qur’an also has this to say: “No change can there be in the words of Allah” (Sura 10:64) and “There is none that can alter the words of Allah” (Sura 6:34).
However, if anyone has altered the Injil (the Christian New Testament), then the Qu’ran is not true when it says “No one can change (or alter) the Word of God.” Therefore, if the Injil (New Testament) was changed, then the Qur’an is false. But if the Injil (New Testament, the words of Allah according to the Qu’ran) are not altered, then the Qur’an is false on account of its denial of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection because the New Testament.
The Authority Of The Injil Over The Qur’an
Evident from the Qur’an’s instruction to judge “by what God had revealed” in the Gospel (Qur’an 5:48), Mohammed was totally satisfied with the Injil’s genuineness and reliability. Additionally, in Surah 10:94, Muhammad is telling people who doubted the veracity of his teachings to ask those who had the book before him (Jews and Christians) if what he was teaching was true. (Surah 10:94) “If you are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ask those who read the book from before you”.
What book before them? The Injil. The New Testament Christian scriptures. If the “book before” was corrupted like many modern day Muslims say, then Mohammed was relying on a corrupted text to verify the Qur’an. If this was true, then the Qur’an cannot be true if what verifies it is corrupted. But if the Injil was not corrupted, then it would explain the more reasonable claim that Mohammed really believed the Christian Scriptures were not corrupted and completely reliable, so much so that they could be used to verify his own teachings. This implies that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection are uncorrupted and reliable, while the Qur’an’s account denying Jesus’ crucifixion would be at false.
You can find out about how bad Graves work is by reading mythicist authors like Richard Carrier. There is no need to pay to read it all again.
The closest similarity I can think of is Buddha, but that was a slightly later alteration to his story. Buddhism and Christianity both are pretty chaste belief systems, so it makes sense that they’d start their hero’s story off with something that fits their doctrines.
What I don’t get is why Matthew and Luke chose to needlessly complicate this stuff with birth accounts that are provably not true. I still don’t understand why Luke created the idea of a mass census just so he can move Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Why create such an over the top plot device?
Well, it’s a great story if nothing else!
Hi Bart,
A few days ago I noted your work in my post, The Existence of Jesus. I’ve become more tolerant of the mythicists in recent years even in disagreement; they at least keep us honest.
I’m glad you started a blog. This should be fun to follow.
I think the most widely known source for mythicists’ claims in recent years is the 2008 documentary Religulous starring Bill Maher. It was the highest grossing documentary of that year. There is a scene and montage about halfway through where claims of there being other ancient mediterranean myths similar to or the same as the gospel stories are presented as fact. Scenes from Jesus movies are subtitled with descriptions of “other” virgin births and redeeming gods rising after three days. A visual presentation like this is quite convincing and I think very few viewers would imagine that the basis for it was literature no better than “Chariots of the Gods”. This really pegs the irony meter.
Hi Bart,
“But it was not because their mothers did not have sex—which is what the early Christians said about Jesus and his mother. On the contrary, the mothers of these pagan divine men certainly did have sex. In fact, they had sex with a god to conceive their miraculous children. One might say they had divine sex.”
And that differs how exactly from the ‘Holy Spirit’ impregnating Mary … ? That soundsl ike ‘divine sex’ to me.
Yes, in Luke it may indeed sound that way. Not so much in Matthew’s account though, where there is no description of the Holy Spirit “coming upon” mary.
But isn’t that because Matthew wrote to Jews (who didn’t like the concept of demi-gods) while Luke wrote to people living in a Gentile setting where ‘the Christ’ had to compete with all sorts of gods, demi-gods and sons of gods?
Yes, that may possibly be the reason. But that’s more or less my point: the view that a virgin who was never touched physically could conceive is not at all the view found in pagan circles/sources.
I don’t see how this debunks mythicism. A god impregnating a woman to produce a Divine Son is a god impregnating a woman to produce a Divine Son. That the author of gMatthew wanted a G-Rated version to adapt the concept to the more sexually-repressed Jewish culture does not demonstrate that the divine conception of Jesus has nothing to do with the divinely-conceived god-man trope. Or would you also claim that the death and resurrection of Neo in The Matrix was a wholly original idea with zero influence from Christianity, because Neo wore a black trench coat, and his resurrection was triggered by a woman’s kiss? Likewise, the death and resurrection of E.T. was a completely unique and new invention, with no borrowing from Christianity, because Jesus wasn’t a funny looking little alien and didn’t have a telepathic link with an 11 year-old boy. And of course the virgin conception of Anakin Skywalker, which designates him as the Chosen One has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian story, because he was conceived by *the Force* rather than by *Yahweh,* right?
This is not to say that there are no good arguments against mythicism. I just don’t think “The author of gMatthew changed the story a little, therefore there couldn’t possibly have been any imitation of the Pagan god-men at all” is one of them.
You’re absolutely right — this argument is not meant to debunk mythicism. It is simply a response to a mythicist claim, that other demi-gods were also born to virgins. Not true!
Ummm…. I don’t see where you address the possibility that the biblical Gospel accounts were redacted in antiquity from the more accurate autographs (or accurate copies of the autographs). Such redaction by “helpful scribes” inserting their theology into the Gospels would explain the presence of factual discrepancies without resorting to defaming (as many “scholars” have done over the years) the intelligence and integrity of the authors of the Gospel accounts. What say ye?
My view is that we need evidence if we want to make a historical claim. So are you thinking of something in particular? As you may know, this is the topic I deal with in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. But I don’t know and can’t think of any evidence that this kind of editorial activity happened in ways that did not affect our manuscripts.