Shalom, friends.
I’ve changed my position on the question of Jesus’s existence a few times over the years. Having grown up as an Evangelical Christian (Baptist → Pentecostal → Stone–Campbell Movement), I was raised to believe in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures (in the original languages, which I now read) and in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and its power to effect the salvation of anyone who believed in it. After going to Bible college for three years, I became disabused of Christianity, and I took three years to complete a conversion into Reform Judaism. As a Jew by choice, I still believed in the historical existence of Jesus, though not an existence that had any importance for my personal life. I moved to Israel a few years later, and only having lived here for four years did I finally allow myself to cross the line and question the existence of deity generally. Until then, I had assumed that God existed as an a priori fact, in the same way that I assumed that there was a historical Jesus. I still believed that there had been a Jesus of history that was somehow reflected in the tales of the Gospels after several years as an agnostic atheist with a secular Jewish identity.
It’s clear that one can be a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu, or whatever religion (or lack of religion) while believing that Jesus existed. I have nothing to gain by believing that Jesus is a myth. But, I have allowed myself to entertain the idea of there not having been a Jesus of history, and it’s a position that is really attractive to me—not as some kind of conspiracy theory or as something that will add anything to me personally, but simply because I think it can make sense of several things that I read in the New Testament and how I understand the emergence of Christianity and the milieu of religious views from which it came into existence.
A few years ago, I bought a copy of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus after hearing his presentation of the topic on a YouTube video. That was the first time that I began to even question whether or not Jesus existed. My mind still isn’t made up on this, though I lean toward mythicism. I’m now reading Dr. Ehrman’s book on the subject to try to get the best argument for the historicism side. Today I read up to page 73 where I found the following quote, which gives me a bit of trouble:
[The gospel writers] were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly….
[T]he reality is that Luke inherited oral traditions about Jesus…, and he recorded what he had heard. What he heard may have been right or it may have been wrong, but the fact that later Christians long after he was dead placed his book into the canon of the New Testament has nothing to do with it. Luke’s writings about Jesus carry no more or less weight than the writings of any other ancient biographer (Suetonius, for example, or Plutarch)—or, perhaps a more apt comparison, of any other biographer of a religious person, such as Philostratus and his account of Apollonius of Tyana.
What bothers me about this? It assumes too much about the author that we simply don’t know. Could it not be that the first writer of the first Gospel (let’s assume that it’s Mark) wasn’t simply doing mythbuilding? Why must it be memory of something real? Could it not be circulated teachings of various teachers that were placed in the mouth of one who was nothing more than created? Oftentimes, we see Jesus saying things that were commonly circulated among religious traditions from within Judaism, such as the so-called “Golden Rule.”
We know that a great percentage of the material used in the Gospels is simply invented. Jesus did not transfigure and meet Moses and Elijah up on a mountain. Jesus did not walk on water, and neither did Peter. He didn’t multiply loaves and fish to the multitudes, raise the dead, miraculously heal the lame, blind, or mute. He did not cast out demons. He did not change water into wine. It’s myth through and through. So, where do we draw the line? At what point do we actually have a real historical person, and how can we really know that we’ve found out something about him?
I’m hoping to find some kind of worthy argument in Dr. Ehrman’s book, but I find myself at the pinnacle of agnosticism with regard to Jesus’s existence. If he existed, he was not the Jesus that we see in the Gospels—at all. So, why not just say that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth? That’s what people are really getting at when they ask this question. There could have been a hundred people who were “Jesus” in theory, though he could have had any other name. I don’t get what saying that there was an “historical” Jesus gets us when we can know virtually nothing about such a person.
Jason
Ehrman, B. (2012). Did Jesus exist?. HarperOne. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
This opening section will not be convincing to naysayers, for reasons I will explain, but we need to start somewhere, and the place to start is with the surviving witnesses that we have in hand.
Taken from page 75, that’s what I needed to hear as I move forward in reading Dr. Ehrman’s presentation of the evidence in support of historicity.
jaihare said
I’m hoping to find some kind of worthy argument in Dr. Ehrman’s book, but I find myself at the pinnacle of agnosticism with regard to Jesus’s existence. If he existed, he was not the Jesus that we see in the Gospels—at all. So, why not just say that the Jesus of the Gospels is a myth? That’s what people are really getting at when they ask this question. There could have been a hundred people who were “Jesus” in theory, though he could have had any other name. I don’t get what saying that there was an “historical” Jesus gets us when we can know virtually nothing about such a person.
Hi Jason,
First of all, fascinating post about your own journey through this material!
Let me comment on this concern: “I don’t get what saying that there was an “historical” Jesus gets us when we can know virtually nothing about such a person.“
Historians want to choose the best explanation of the evidence they have in front of them. Now, what best explains the origins of the Gospel accounts? Is the better explanation that they have no connection with any real person named ‘Jesus’ in first century Palestine? Or is the better explanation that there was some such person whose career was the start of the process leading to the mythologized accounts we have? To my mind, the latter situation would be much more likely to result in the kind of evidence we have than the former situation.
History just *is* the discipline which looks for the best explanations of evidence concerning the past. For if we constantly search for the best explanations, then we will hopefully move closer and closer to what actually happened. If postulating an actual man named ‘Yeshua bar Yosef ha-Notzri’ who was crucified in the first century is the best explanation, then that is what historians want, even if not much else is known about him.
Ehrman and most others, though, would disagree with the idea that we can know virtually nothing about the historical Jesus. Careful application of the criteria of authenticity, they would claim, gives us a probable outline of the figure who started off the whole process leading to Christianity and the Gospels (from Nazareth, baptized by John, collected disciples, was an apocalyptic prophet, went to Jerusalem, caused a scene in the temple, got arrested and crucified, etc.); not as much as we would like, and not enough to ground traditional faith, but the best explanation of the data nonetheless.
I think we can basically accept pretty much any non-supernatural claims made about Jesus. There may be less than supernatural claims that we can classify as exaggeration to elevate Jesus to a more heroic status, and there may be specific issues of conflicting accounts, but we would probably be able to accept either version as a matter of history. (It is also perfectly fine to admit that we don’t know everything about pretty much any historical figure, and even many who are far more contemporary.) It is probably safe to say that George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree and tell his father than he could not tell a lie, but that does not mean that George Washington did not exist, or that he not did lead an extraordinary life in other ways.
When it comes to the supernatural claims, all we can do, as Dr. Ehrman has done, is compare them to similar claims about other historical and/or mythological characters. This is a case where Dr. Ehrman makes a pretty good case that many of the claims of mythicists exaggerate similarities. There really does not seem to be a predecessor with claims made that precisely and collectively serve as a direct model for what is claimed about Jesus. (Bits and pieces, perhaps, but never quite in the same context.)
The question that remains, and one that possibly cannot be answered, is if the people who left us the accounts of Jesus that became the New Testament simply invented all of the stories, what was their motivation? And such a motivation must make sense in a historical context, where Christianity was a struggling and persecuted cult, and not as the world-wide power that it is today. The idea that it must all be true because Christian martyrs endured torture and died rather than relinquish their faith ignores that many of those same martyrs also believe some things that would hardly be considered mainstream today. There have also been martyrs of more overtly non-Christian traditions.
Again, what I think we are left with is a fascinating question that we cannot conclusively answer, that is conclusively answer with an explanation backed up by specific evidence. That is a problem for people who insist that the Bible itself is sufficient evidence. Many will say that it is far from sufficient, and it gets harder and harder to make the claims of reliability when we can see that the book, no matter how influential it has been as a document, is full of complications, contradictions and questions of interpretation.
I think if we didn’t have Paul’s letters mythicism might more compelling than it is to me. What the mythicists have to do with Paul is to keep saying “no he didn’t really mean that, what he actually meant was…” And after the third or fourth iteration I just get exasperated because the interpretations get more and more ad hoc. What I think we can say with a fair amount of certitude is that Paul thought Jesus was a human being. Paul thought he was more than that but at least that. (I don’t think his argument in Romans makes any sense if he didn’t think Jesus was a human being. Paul’s problem is that he thinks Adam was a real human being!)
But what I need in the end is somebody with a compelling account of how the mythic Jesus came to be. Carrier at least makes the attempt but it is not very convincing to me. An apocalyptic prophet whose followers came to believe he was made divine by god because of his righteousness is absolutely non-controversial. There are no perfect solutions but it gives the best account of what we do know.
jaihare if you haven’t read it get Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium . That one does the best job of placing a historical Jesus in a First Century milieu.
Is Jesus Real or Is Jesus a Myth?
Wikipedia entry for Tulpa T U L P A
Tulpa is a concept in Theosophy, mysticism, and the paranormal of an object or being that is created through spiritual or mental powers.
Modern practitioners use the term to refer to a type of willed imagined being which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively independent. Tulpas have thoughts, emotions, and personality separate from their host. People who have one or more tulpas are called “tulpamancers”. Tulpas can be created either with a collection of meditative techniques or accidentally when someone has an imaginary friend that persists later in life
Occultist William Walker Atkinson in his book The Human Aura described thoughtforms as simple ethereal objects emanating from the auras surrounding people, generating from their thoughts and feelings. He further elaborated in Clairvoyance and Occult Powers how experienced practitioners of the occult can produce thoughtforms from their auras that serve as astral projections which may or may not look like the person who is projecting them, or as illusions that can only be seen by those with “awakened astral senses”.
Spiritualist Alexandra David-Néel stated that she had observed these mystical practices in 20th-century Tibet. She described tulpas as “magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought.” David-Néel believed that a tulpa could develop a mind of its own: “Once the tulpa is endowed with enough vitality to be capable of playing the part of a real being, it tends to free itself from its maker’s control. According to David-Néel, this happens nearly mechanically, just as the child, when her body is completed and able to live apart, leaves its mother’s womb.” She said she had created such a tulpa in the image of a jolly Friar Tuck-like monk, which later developed a life of its own and had to be destroyed. David-Néel raised the possibility that her experience was illusory: “I may have created my own hallucination”, though she said others could see the thoughtforms that she created.
= = =
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
People are accepting my line of reasoning leading to the conclusion: Jesus was not a unique, biological (resulting from semen and egg), human being because Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, composed of a number of historical figures and more, for example an angel, for example, Enoch, Son of Man, raised to the status of angel and judge of each human.
Still, with that agreement with the contents of my book, Historical Accuracy, I also get, Jesus is real for me. I know Jesus turned my life around.
= = =
Jesus comes from Paul. Jesus is extrapolated in assignments in Rhetoric where his story is told using Homeric epics, Hebrew scriptures, Jewish Apocalypticism, 2 Enoch, and pro-Roman post-war literature told by the victors of the Jewish Revolt (for example, putting a 180 degree spin on Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee).
= = =
Jaihare
Why not say Jesus is a myth?
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
1) Jesus is the historical Jesus of Galilee rewritten
2) The rewrite of this real man is too rich
3) Paul, Philo of Alexandria, and the author/s of 2 Enoch have personified God, the Savior, as an angel with the image of God, a notion of religious importance
4) Jesus is a post-destroyed Temple of Jerusalem figure, perhaps, beyond hero status
5) Jesus is Rome’s statement against militant messianism: Rome decides the fate of the historical Jesus of Galilee who revolted and in the rewritten character, even a less threatening Jesus advocating a spiritual kingdom inside or above the Roman Empire is killed because he did not get approval from Rome to get people thinking about his ministry.
6) Jesus is an argument for the Hebrew Bible. Jesus is a new version of Moses. Jesus is a new version of Enoch.
7) Jesus is a tulpa.
“Jesus is a myth” is an insufficient statement.
Couple observations:
The phrase “mythicism” might somewhat misrepresent the range of arguments against the historicity of jesus portrayed in the NT. To take Robert Price as an example: I find his comparative mythology – motifs of the dying/rising god – as the least persuasive of his angles. Furthermore, there’s a populist tendency to make dubious associations between Jesus and Osiris, Mithras etc. However, when Price catalogues the OT parallels with the gospels (following scholarship of Crossan, for example) it seems to me to be ever more improbable that both a story in the tanakh AND an allegous event in jesus’s life really happened. Each gospel writer clearly also has their own Greek literature influences: Odysseus in Mark, Asclepius in John etc.
The historical figure may not necessarily have been known as Jesus or Esho (aramaic derivant of yeshua: “saviour”) to his contemporaries. It might be a nickname or codename or nom de geurre or description (see peter, paul, Israel etc.). I think this opens up new fronts for identifying the historic source (or sources) for the character.
danceswithwombats said
Couple observations:The phrase “mythicism” might somewhat misrepresent the range of arguments against the historicity of jesus portrayed in the NT. To take Robert Price as an example: I find his comparative mythology – motifs of the dying/rising god – as the least persuasive of his angles. Furthermore, there’s a populist tendency to make dubious associations between Jesus and Osiris, Mithras etc. However, when Price catalogues the OT parallels with the gospels (following scholarship of Crossan, for example) it seems to me to be ever more improbable that both a story in the tanakh AND an allegous event in jesus’s life really happened. Each gospel writer clearly also has their own Greek literature influences: Odysseus in Mark, Asclepius in John etc.
The historical figure may not necessarily have been known as Jesus or Esho (aramaic derivant of yeshua: “saviour”) to his contemporaries. It might be a nickname or codename or nom de geurre or description (see peter, paul, Israel etc.). I think this opens up new fronts for identifying the historic source (or sources) for the character.
Since ‘Yeshua’ was one of the most common names for men in first century Palestine, and was the most common Semitic name behind the Greek ‘Iesous’, wouldn’t the most straightforward explanation for the use of this Greek form be that Yeshua was his actual name?
Omar6741 said
Since ‘Yeshua’ was one of the most common names for men in first century Palestine, and was the most common Semitic name behind the Greek ‘Iesous’, wouldn’t the most straightforward explanation for the use of this Greek form be that Yeshua was his actual name?
I’ve heard authorities quoted as saying that the final ʿayin was dropped in Galilean pronunciation, such that it might very well have been Yeshu (ישו) rather than Yeshua (ישוע), but it was one of these or the other (IMHO). Many modern-day Messianic Jews hate the form Yeshu and go only with Yeshua, since the abbreviation יש״ו (the same letters as the name Yeshu) has traditionally been attached to names like Balaam to say “may his name and memory be blotted out” (ימח שמו וזכרו).
Omar6741 said
danceswithwombats said
Couple observations:
The phrase “mythicism” might somewhat misrepresent the range of arguments against the historicity of jesus portrayed in the NT. To take Robert Price as an example: I find his comparative mythology – motifs of the dying/rising god – as the least persuasive of his angles. Furthermore, there’s a populist tendency to make dubious associations between Jesus and Osiris, Mithras etc. However, when Price catalogues the OT parallels with the gospels (following scholarship of Crossan, for example) it seems to me to be ever more improbable that both a story in the tanakh AND an allegous event in jesus’s life really happened. Each gospel writer clearly also has their own Greek literature influences: Odysseus in Mark, Asclepius in John etc.
The historical figure may not necessarily have been known as Jesus or Esho (aramaic derivant of yeshua: “saviour”) to his contemporaries. It might be a nickname or codename or nom de geurre or description (see peter, paul, Israel etc.). I think this opens up new fronts for identifying the historic source (or sources) for the character.
Since ‘Yeshua’ was one of the most common names for men in first century Palestine, and was the most common Semitic name behind the Greek ‘Iesous’, wouldn’t the most straightforward explanation for the use of this Greek form be that Yeshua was his actual name?
It would be the most straightforward explanation and arguably the most likely but my point was he “may not necessarily have been known as Jesus or Esho…” to his contemporaries.
All scholars save literalists believe some elements of the gospel accounts are distorted/confabulated – if you can accept that He might not have actually walked on water why not that the historical kernel might be someone known as something else (or in a different decade)?
Trotsky, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Buddha, Billy the Kid, whoopi goldberg etc are all names that would be alien to their own mothers. The quest for the historic king Arthur isn’t even sure who they’re looking for.
jaihare said
Omar6741 said
Since ‘Yeshua’ was one of the most common names for men in first century Palestine, and was the most common Semitic name behind the Greek ‘Iesous’, wouldn’t the most straightforward explanation for the use of this Greek form be that Yeshua was his actual name?
I’ve heard authorities quoted as saying that the final ʿayin was dropped in Galilean pronunciation, such that it might very well have been Yeshu (ישו) rather than Yeshua (ישוע), but it was one of these or the other (IMHO). Many modern-day Messianic Jews hate the form Yeshu and go only with Yeshua, since the abbreviation יש״ו (the same letters as the name Yeshu) has traditionally been attached to names like Balaam to say “may his name and memory be blotted out” (ימח שמו וזכרו).
I think I’ve read it seen it rendered Isho from the syriac that was developing around first century CE.
The below quote was extracted from A. Boyd Kuhn ‘s book on the shadow of the third century. I readily see how Kuhn can be ignored but I find a great deal of value in his argument. Any thoughts?
“Along with this it is most interesting to note what Charles B. Waite in his History of the Christian Religion to A.D. 200 says as to the part that this same Marcion played in the formation of Christianity. Waite says that beyond question Marcion’s gospel was the original from which the four canonical Gospels were afterwards fabricated by the later Christian plagiarists. He also tells us that pure Christianity has suffered no greater loss than that of the writings of Marcion, the great theological thinker of the second century, compiler of the first complete Gospel, collector of the Epistles of Paul, editor and publisher of the first New Testament. While the elaborate work against him written by Tertullian, who called him a “hound,” has been preserved, and the work of Epiphanius, who bestowed on him the euphonious appellation of “the Beast,” the writings of Marcion have perished, except such as are found in the references and citations of his adversaries. His works have shared the common fate of those of the heretics of the second century, none of which in their original form have been permitted to come down to us. Waite asks, significantly, why.”
All scholars save literalists believe some elements of the gospel accounts are distorted/confabulated – if you can accept that He might not have actually walked on water why not that the historical kernel might be someone known as something else (or in a different decade)?
Many things are possible but not everything is probable. Historicism is the simplest explanation that accounts for what we do know which is not a lot. Mythicism has too many moving parts to be a cogent explanation for the origins of Christianity. Too ad hoc. Like Freud didn’t say but should have, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Jesus was a guy.
50 years ago a Catholic priest named Thomas Brodie discovered that Luke/Acts was based on the Elijah Elisha Narrative (EEN). So there you have it. The timeline for the Jesus mythology is removed from first century AD. It is reworked mythology form the OT. Brodie maintains that he is a Christian, despite the fact that his Jesus is now a myth.
Two years ago, not knowing of Brodie’s work, I discovered that Joshua son of Jehozadak was based on Joshua son of Nun. Then I discovered that the EEN was also borrowing themes from Joshua son of Nun. Then I discovered that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. One is the English of the Greek of the Hebrew. The other is the English from the Hebrew. It became obvious to me that Mark’s Jesus was based on Elisha, Jesus Nun, and Jesus Jehozadak.
Searching for anything scholastic that I could research on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth has eerie similarities with two prior fictional Jesuses (and one Elisha), I finally got my hands on Thomas Brodie’s work. I have found many more similarities, and much more convincing ones, then what he has published. I would love to tell him but have had trouble contacting him.
The great thing about Thomas Brodie’s work is that he sees proto-Luke-Acts as the earliest gospel, and his research aligns well with earlier research trying to isolate Semitisms in Luke to identify the earliest gospel. Brodie’s proto-Luke-Acts matches this earlier proto Luke theory. It turns out the Semitisms were where Luke was channeling the EEN.
I disagree with Brodie’s assessment that a proto-Luke-Acts was first. I think Mark was first because of how he structures some of his EEN material. However, Brodie and I are simply extending a time honored tradition that began before the bible was canonized, ran through Mark and Luke-Acts, and here we are today. You see Mark used the books Joshua, 2 Samuel, the EEN, and Zechariah. Meanwhile Brodie sees Luke channeling Judges, the EEN, and 2 Chronicles. Not only are this different books, but SOME OF THESE BOOKS COPIED SECTIONS OF THE OTHER SET OF BOOKS, JUST LIKE THE SYNOPTICS OF THE NT! Clearly one set of scribes was answering the ideas of another set of scribes.
When I found the two Jesuses (and one Elisha) in the OT, I switched from historicist to mythicist, because the most compelling piece of evidence for historicism for me was intuitive. The arrows of time all seem to point toward a crucifixion around 32 CE.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)