Jesus began as a myth and was later historicized: Difference between revisions

From Religions Wiki
Line 180: Line 180:
===1 Clement===
===1 Clement===
{{wikipedia|First Epistle of Clement}}
{{wikipedia|First Epistle of Clement}}
1 Clement is one of the earliest documents in Christianity apart from the New Testament. No clear mention of an Earthly Jesus. No knowledge of the Gospel narratives. Cites scripture, not eye witnesses.
1 Clement is one of the earliest documents in Christianity apart from the New Testament. It makes no clear mention of an Earthly Jesus. It also has no knowledge of the Gospel narratives. For sources, it cites scripture, not eye witnesses. This is consistent with mythicism but not as likely under historicism.


{{quote|Clement should have possessed some word of Jesus to support key issues like repentance and forgiveness, the promise of resurrection, the coming of the Kingdom and his own return, whether in fact a real historical Jesus had said anything about them or not. Any movement following teachings of an historical figure, and certainly of the historical Jesus supposedly behind Q and the Gospels, should have possessed a much richer body of tradition associated with such a figure than Clement displays. Indeed, his catalogue is threadbare.<ref name="puzzlenohistorical"/>}}
{{quote|Clement should have possessed some word of Jesus to support key issues like repentance and forgiveness, the promise of resurrection, the coming of the Kingdom and his own return, whether in fact a real historical Jesus had said anything about them or not. Any movement following teachings of an historical figure, and certainly of the historical Jesus supposedly behind Q and the Gospels, should have possessed a much richer body of tradition associated with such a figure than Clement displays. Indeed, his catalogue is threadbare.<ref name="puzzlenohistorical"/>}}

Revision as of 20:44, 31 May 2019

Richard Carrier in 2006
Did Jesus begin as a myth? or as an actual person?

One group of Jesus myth theories claims that Jesus was a spiritual being who some experienced in visions, or people pretended to have visions of Jesus. The gospels were an allegory of the spiritual person on Earth (i.e. Jesus was euhemerized). These myths were when taught as if they were true. Advocates for the theory include Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald and Earl Doherty. [1] It is one of many theories about the existence of Jesus.

"[The most plausible Jesus myth theory is] the earliest Christians preached a celestial being named Jesus Christ, then later this godlike figure was fictionally placed in a historical setting just as other gods were, and the original concept eventually forgotten, dismissed, or suppressed.[2]"
"If we had to rely on the letters of the earliest Christians, such as Paul and those who wrote most of the other New Testament epistles, we would be hard pressed to find anything resembling the details of the Gospel story. [...] Could it be that if we remove those Gospel-colored glasses when reading the early Christian writers, we would find that all of them, Paul especially, have been telling us in plain and unmistakable terms exactly what the earliest Christians did believe in, and what the Christ they all worshiped really was?[3]"
"Christianity, like all religious movements, was born from mythmaking; and nowhere is this clearer than when we examine the context from which Jesus sprang[4]"

This theory claims that the mythical Jesus had followers who were later influenced by pagan religions and Greek influences rather than the other way around. The evidence available to historians in the years 64 to 95 CE is non-existent and it is difficult to chart the course of Christianity when we have no idea who was in charge, their areas of influence, items of deputes and how disputes were resolved.

The most common view among historians is that Jesus existed as a historical man, who had later legends and myths added to his biography.

Minimal facts

According to the New Testament, receiving visions of Jesus was a common occurrence. Paul the Apostle claims he was converted by a divine revelation. Acts 9:3-9 Bible-icon.png.

Richard Carrier argued that there are a set of minimal facts that must be supported for any Jesus myth theory to be valid.[2]

  • Jesus began as a celestial deity, similar to other religions.
  • Followers of Jesus claimed they received visions or dreams that gave them divine knowledge.
  • His followers believed that Jesus experienced a dying and rising ordeal in a supernatural plane.
  • The story of Jesus was told to new followers in an allegory which placed Jesus in a historic setting.
  • The story was eventually taken by his followers to be more literal than allegorical.

If any of these claims could be shown to be false, it would disprove mythicism (except for theories that claim Jesus began as a political allegory, deliberate hoax, etc).

Why did the myth of Jesus arise?

Previously, mythicism has been criticized for not explaining the origin of Christianity.[5] Newer versions of the theory attempt to address this alleged problem.

"In reality, "Christianity" in its beginnings was much more diffuse [than we commonly imagine]. It was made up of several unrelated strands of activity within the religious philosophy and culture of the time, strands which lacked any common point or figure of origin.[3]"

Christianity grew out of Judaism in the 1st century CE in the western Levant region under Roman rule. Judaism of the time was very diverse in belief with disagreements on politics, theology and practices. At this stage, the Old Testament has not been edited to its current canonical version, so there was a wide variety of scriptures in circulation. There was an expectation of a messiah (a christ), possibly Elijah, to appear and liberate the Jews, often believed to be by a military victory. There were many messiah cults that appeared, possibly following an interpretation of existing Old Testament prophecy predicting an early first century messiah Daniel 12:11 Bible-icon.png. Many of these false messiahs were recorded by the contemporary historian Flavius Josephus. These messiahs where often suppressed by Roman authorities, which feared local uprisings. The region eventually rebelled in 66 CE leading to the First Jewish-Roman War, possibly fueled by messianic expectations. Jews at the time considered the Temple in Jerusalem, as the house of God, to be central to their religion. However, the temple administration was widely considered to be corrupt and as the reason God did not intervene to liberate the land believed by Jews to be promised by God. In Christianity, Jesus replaces the Temple as the means of salvation.

"It is reasonable to infer that once the literal, militaristic version of the [messiah] had been seen to fail (or indeed to be impossible, given the unstoppable might of the legions), it would not be unthinkable to adapt the same idea to being freed from the slavery not of the Romans or the corrupt Jewish elite, but the slavery of invisible demons (and death itself instead). [...] The only question is whether this Jesus was a real messianic pretender just like all these others [...] or whether Jesus was a spiritually conceived messiah right from the beginning.[2]"
"The itinerant prophets of this new 'counter-culture' expression announced the coming of the kingdom of God and anticipated the arrival of a heavenly figure called the Son of Man who would judge the world. They urged repentance, taught a new ethic and advocated a new society; they claimed the performance of miracles, and they aroused the hostility of the religious establishment.[3]"

According to various historians, some Jews expected the messiah to experience a dying-then-rising figure Isaiah 53 Bible-icon.png that would herald the end times and sins will be forgiven Daniel 9:24-27 Bible-icon.png.[2] There is also a Old Testament story of Joshua son of Jozadak (which an equivalent name for Jesus son of God), being called Ἀνατολή meaning the East (where the sun rises or the Branch in other translations, possibly referring to the line of David), being proclaimed king and building the temple of the Lord and rule on his throne Zechariah 6:9-13 Bible-icon.png.[2] This may have been the inspiration for the core doctrine of Christianity.[2] Jews before Christianity and Christians of the early church were often searching scriptures, and the broader set of texts thought to be inspired by God, such as the Psalms of Solomon and other texts that have not survived, for clues about the messiah.

"The Christian religion could in a sense be explained as an attempt to explain away Daniel's failed prediction of a divinely supported military victory for Israel over its Gentile oppressors (which continually didn't happen), by imagining (unlike Daniel) a 'spiritual' kingdom instead of an actual one [...] Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology, and as such differs from each precisedly in what it borrows from the other.[2]"

Judaism of the time was very diverse and, even though we only know a little about these groups, Christianity shows signs of being influenced by several of them, including the Pharisees, the Essens and the Baptists. The Beatitudes are of pre-Christian origin since a version is recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q525).[6]

Early Christianity has often been categorized a mystery religion, involving secret knowledge and ceremonies known only to initiates of the religion. Many other mystery religions existed throughout the Greek-Roman world. Christianity shares the concept of a savior god that experiences sufferings often including death and resurrection, salvation through rituals, baptism to wash away sins to be reborn, and ritual meals, with the other mystery cults.[2] Richard Carrier agrees that Christianity is a mystery religion but points out it is not exactly like the other mystery religions.

"The pagan "mystery cults" of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts. Under the influence of Platonism, these acts came to be interpreted by the cults as taking place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history.[3]"

Common trends in the Hellenistic period among the mystery cults[7] fit early Christianity very closely: [1][2]

  • Hellenizing foreign deities. Mystery religious elements would be fused with a local religion to form a hybrid religious belief system. Christianity is a fusion of Hellenistic ideas with a Jewish/Palestinian cult, the Nazarenes. This process is called syncretism.
  • Monotheism and henotheism.
  • Changing fertility and agricultural gods into personal salvation god, while retaining the original myths and stories. This often features the passion (or struggle), death and resurrection of a god, such as Romulus, Osiris and Zalmoxis. They were generally euhemerized but never had an Earthly existence. Osiris had euhemerized stories for non-initiates, but the members of the religion told of Oriris' death and resurrection just below the moon. The same seems to have been believed of Jesus.
  • Race and nationality were de-emphasized as it was believed that anyone could be initiated into a religion.

Dying-then-rising religions were common in the area around the time Christianity originated, e.g. the cult of Osiris. This idea is very likely to have been imported into Christianity from pagan religions. Early writers such as Justin Martyr recorded similarity between Christians and followers of Zeus. Osiris had euhemerized stories for non-initiates, but the members of the religion told of Oriris' death and resurrection just below the moon. The same seems to have been believed of Jesus. Christianity also imported concepts from philosophy at the time, particularly from Cynicism with ideas such as living a simple life and disavowing worldly desires. Common knowledge of cosmology was adopted that updated the Genesis model. Jewish theology already considered heaven to consist of a number of layers, some filled with angels, others with perfected copies of things that exist on Earth.

Intermediary divine sons were a common religious concept at the time.

"The most prominent philosophical-religious concept of the period was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish personified Wisdom were models for Paul's heavenly Christ and Son, who took on an additional, sacrificial role under the inspiration of scripture.[3]"

Many characters appear in legends, sometimes soon after their appearance, such as King Arthur, John, etc as a tool of social cohesion.

The authors of the Gospels were highly educated in Greek. This education meant they were familiar with standard Greek texts including Homer, Greco-Roman mythology and historians such as Flavius Josephus.

Early church

By the 20s C.E., some Jews already worshipped a celestial creator angel called Jesus. This belief was transformed, possibly by Cephas (Simon Peter), to be a crucified and risen savour (heavenly) Christ, who had achieved spiritual victory by his death 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 Bible-icon.png. Believers who followed Jesus were thought to be able to reach salvation due to the sacrifice of Jesus and this made sacrifices at the temple unnecessary. The earliest church was probably apocalyptic, Torah observant and according to many historians, the early Christians did not regard Jesus as identical to God. Accepted sources of religious knowledge were esoteric interpretations of scripture and personal visions, which were often received by many believers. Carrier points to the similarity of Paul the Apostle's revelatory experiences with Islam and Mormonism, in which a teacher experiences visions of a divine being which is then recorded in a holy book.

Paul the Apostle is the earliest writer we have in Christianity, and arguably the most historical.

From the 30s to the 60s, Paul the Apostle spread early Christianity around Syria and Turkey. His version abandoned the Torah observance requirement which enabled him to reach a wider audience. He was one of the apostles: a group that received visions that provided divine knowledge. The teachings of the church began to be historicised to make them more persuasive and to prevent future innovation of religious doctrine. The historical Jesus was taught to low rank initiates as an extended parable or metaphor. The true celestial doctrines were reserved for higher ranked members.

The church was then devastated by the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) (and possibly under the emperor Nero), after which Christianity enters a "dark age" with very little being recorded about the church leadership and doctrinal debates. The gospels were composed in this time by anonymous, highly educated authors. Christianity is similar to Cargo cults in that they arose in a society which was fragmented, experienced extreme inequality and experienced a series of military defeats. In situations, people seek a way to unify against threats in a non-military institutions outside the existing power structures. Gradually, the historical Christianity became more powerful and declared the mythical Jesus to be a heretical belief. Many of the earlier doctrines were not preserved or redacted by later editors, either by suppression or lack of interest.[8]

Bayesian argument

A few historians have attempted to apply mathematical probability to comparing different historical theories. This asks, for each piece of evidence, "what is the probability of the evidence appearing under theories 'minimal historicism' and 'minimal mythicism'?" This allows many pieces of evidence to be considered while avoiding any one item to be wrongly emphasised or neglected in our analysis. This approach is central to books like Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.

"There is only about a 0% to 33% chance Jesus existed. Furthermore, given my analysis [..], this means the probability that minimal mythicism is true is about 67% to 100% (and most likely nearer the high end of that range). What does that mean for Jesus studies? It means all later tales of a historical Jesus and his family need to be seen as legendary, mythical and propagandistic inventions, and studied for their literary and rhetorical purpose and not for their specific historical content. But more importantly, it means we need to re-examine the earliest evidence from a completely different perspective.[2]"

Using Bayesian probability in this way requires the probability of each piece of evidence to be evaluated and mathematics be properly applied. Many documents are considered to be later additions or unreliable and do not support either historicism or mythicism. Also, the conclusion based on this analysis is always provisional, as new evidence can alter the result. Christian apologists have very different views when evaluating the individual pieces of evidence, when compared to rigorous historians.

Prior probability of claims

As the first step, Richard Carrier points out that we can consider how likely "minimal mythicism" and "minimal historicity" are based on the claims made and our background knowledge, but separately from (i.e. "prior to" examining) the evidence. This gives us an estimate of likelihood before we get into the detail of relevant source material. Of course, it is necessary to examine relevant historic sources to reach a final conclusion but determining the prior probability is an important step in evaluating historical theories. Essentially, it is the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

The biography details of Jesus fit the Rank-Raglan mythotype quite closely. All the high scoring figures using this measure are generally considered to be mythical. So while it is not impossible for Jesus to be historical, we are going to require good evidence to accept such an unlikely claim.

Epistles genuinely written by Paul

The Epistles are a group of letters written from early church leaders to early Christian communities. We should expect a great deal of correspondence to have been written by early Christians which discussed doctrine and practices of the religion. Only a small subset has been preserved in the New Testament but this still amounts to tens of thousands of words. The epistles are the earliest writings in Christianity that are still available to us, being written decades before the Gospels. Being closest in date of authorship to the life of Jesus, they are also among the most relevant to determining historicity. Only seven of the epistles attributed to Paul the Apostle were actually written by him. Paul wrote that he received his knowledge by revelation "from the Lord" and/or Jesus, but not from man.

Jesus as a heavenly spirit

Paul claims to have received knowledge of Jesus from scripture and revelation exclusively (not from other people)[2] Gal 1:11-16 Bible-icon.png Rom 15:25-26 Bible-icon.png 1 Cor 15:1-9 Bible-icon.png. When read separately from the Gospels, the epistles seem to refer to Jesus as a spiritual being revealed in visions. Jesus is only ever seen after his resurrection and never in public.[2] Who killed Jesus is only discussed in vague terms (in authentic verses). For Paul, Jesus never had an earthly existence.

"The early epistles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus (Messiah Savior) as a spiritual, heavenly being, one revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new salvation movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.[3]"
"[..] the simplest hypothesis for why Paul never showed any interest in the historical Jesus, nor did any of his congregations not did any of his opponents. Because there was no historical Jesus. There was only a revealed being.[2]"
"Paul thought that a person named Jesus had lived and that he now sat at the right hand of God in heaven. Yet he shows only a passing acquaintance with traditions related to his life and nowhere an independent acquaintance with them.[9]"
"at the centre of [Paul's] preachings there is not the teacher from Galilee but the Redeemer from heaven. Why? [...] the Jesus who was only a teacher from Galilee disappeared from the tradition at a very early date, so early that one wonders whether it was ever there at all.[10]"

The highest rank in the church is Apostle, like Paul himself. 1 Cor 12:28 Bible-icon.png There is no higher rank of people who had met Jesus (including the "original" Apostles which were probably a later invention).[2] Why did the Apostles who met Paul accept him as an Apostle? Only because Paul had equal credentials as receiving revelations.[2] If Paul had no personal experience compared to other teachers who had, Paul's teaching would be been distrusted. Therefore, no one claimed to have had personal experience of Jesus.[2] Revelation was preferred by Galatians over testimony which only makes sense with mythicism.[2] Galatians 1-2 Bible-icon.png Paul's only concern about Apostles exceeded himself are those with better rhetorical skill.[2] 2 Cor 11:1-7, 12:7-13 Bible-icon.png Paul warns against teachers who speak of "another Jesus", which only makes sense as "a different spirit".[2] 2 Cor 11:4 Bible-icon.png

The silence of Paul

There is no mention of the appearance of Jesus before his death. There is no mention of an Earthly mission. Jesus only appears in a revelation to people. The only narrative he recorded, of the Last Supper was also from revelation but doesn't mention any disciples. No eye witnesses are mentioned or oral testimony. There is no historical specifics regarding the life of Jesus. Disciples, family members or people who met Jesus are never mentioned by Paul. Miracles and parables are not mentioned.

The Pauline epistles cover many subjects but do not mention any biographical information about Jesus. This is strange because, if Jesus existed as a historical person, we would expect minor biographical details of his life, actions and death to be relevant in answering certain points of debate in the early church. This is despite Jesus being constantly discussed in the epistles. This is the "argument from silence" because historical sources do not mention something we would expect.[2] We have biographical (if incomplete) information for all other people that are considered as historical.

"In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him.[11]"
"Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or his trial or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been, or what people he knew. [...] Paul never references any event in Jesus' life as an example to follow (beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never places anything Jesus said in any early historical context whatever. [...] That is all simply bizarre. [...] it is still hard to explain how Jesus could have been so rapidly worshiped as a demigod if he hardly ever taught anything worth repeating.[2]"

Paul fails to quote Jesus even when it would support his case e.g. "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due" Rom 13:6-7 Bible-icon.png, "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not." Rom 12:14-21 Bible-icon.png.

Specific sections

  • 1 Cor 15:1-8 Bible-icon.png a statement of the core doctrine of Christianity that is compatible with both historicism and mythicism.
  • Rom 1:1-6 Bible-icon.png Jesus was "made" genomenos into a man, rather than "born" gennao.[2]
  • Phil 2:5-11 Bible-icon.png still describes a mythicist Jesus, as a pre-existent being that was given a body. Jesus was again a "being made" genomenos. Jesus was "discovered" heuretheis in that form.[2]
  • Col 1:12-20 Bible-icon.png another detailed discussion of the significance of Jesus with no mention of an earthly ministry.[2]
  • Rom 10:14-17 Bible-icon.png no one has heard Jesus except through preachers like Paul.[2]
  • 1 Cor 2:6-10 Bible-icon.png Mythicists point to Jesus being crucified by "the rulers of the age". This is a common reference to demons, not the Jews or Romans. Paul's point that Jesus's identity was hidden to allow the salvation of mankind only makes sense if it refers to demons rather than groups that would stand to benefit.[2]
  • 1 Pet 2:13-14 Bible-icon.png Paul argues that Earthly authorities are sent by God "to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right", indicating they were not responsible for the death of Jesus.[2]

Other issues

Some sections seem to been later additions to the original text 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 Bible-icon.png 1 Timothy 6:13 Bible-icon.png, which are not reliable evidence of historicity.[2]

The main counter arguments involve finding potential historical references in the epistles. Paul seems to mention the Earthy family of Jesus. However, being "brothers of the Lord" Galatians 1:19 Bible-icon.png is probably a religious concept and not biological siblings.

"Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8).[11]"

Other epistles

Hebrews

Hebrews, very likely an early text but not by Paul, also speaks of a celestial Jesus. It cites revelation and scripture, not eyewitnesses as its source of information. There is no knowledge of the gospel narratives, no saying and no miracles. It describes Jesus as a high priest that died in outer space. It goes on argue that this has to be the case for his sacrifice to work.

"If he were on earth, he would not be a priest...But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry"

Hebrews 8:4-6 Bible-icon.png

Hebrews claims that there are perfect copies of everything in heaven (as in Platonism). Everything on Earth was an imperfect copy, e.g. animal sacrifices. For the sacrifice of Jesus to be perfect, it must have occurred in heaven.[12] This argument, as well as Hebrews 9:11-10:18 Bible-icon.png, only works if Jesus was in heaven not on Earth.

"In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is the heavenly High Priest who offers his sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary, an expression of Alexandrian-style Platonism.[11]"

Hebrews is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the earliest Christians were mythicists.

Epistles of James and Peter

The letters of James and Peter 1 are also silent about a historical Jesus. (The forged letter 2 Peter Bible-icon.png features an earthly Jesus.) The sources cited by Peter 1 are scripture and revelation, not testimony. These letters also imply the Jesus is a heavenly agent.

Other early sources

As the Christian church began to formulate its orthodox belief, the writings that contradicted their view were not preserved because they had little interest in them. However, a few pieces of evidence survive. Not all historians accept these sources as evidence for a mythical origin.

"The point to be made is that the Gospels and Acts form only one small portion of the early Christian record. They reflect but one category of thought and witness to what that broad movement believed in [...][3]"

Philo of Alexandria

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

Philo of Alexandria wrote of a celestial being that is the firstborn son of God, a high priest of God and an agent of creation. Richard Carrier argues that this is evidence of a belief in a celestial Jesus. The earliest Christian texts seem to be taking about the same Jesus, with the same theology.

"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" [referencing Zech. 6:12 Bible-icon.png] A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.[13]"

Philo does not mention the existence of Jesus but it is quite likely that obscure preachers could be omitted by ancient historians.

"But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many.[14]"

Ascension of Isaiah

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

The Ascension of Isaiah is an early Christian text (late 1st century CE to early 3rd century CE) that tells of the prophet Isaiah receiving a vision. In the vision God sends Jesus to save mankind from the Devil, which involves Jesus's death and resurrection - however, this happens "in the firmament" (outer space) but not on Earth. There is no mention of an earthly ministry apart from in a "pocket gospel" section that seems to have been inserted into the earlier text. The story is very similar to pre-Christian scriptures that describe a dying-then-rising god, often occurring in a celestial plane e.g. the Descent of Inanna.[2]

What this text shows is that at least some early Christians held a mythic view of Jesus. How the text relates to the canonical New Testament is unclear.

"The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon).[11]"

1 Clement

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

1 Clement is one of the earliest documents in Christianity apart from the New Testament. It makes no clear mention of an Earthly Jesus. It also has no knowledge of the Gospel narratives. For sources, it cites scripture, not eye witnesses. This is consistent with mythicism but not as likely under historicism.

"Clement should have possessed some word of Jesus to support key issues like repentance and forgiveness, the promise of resurrection, the coming of the Kingdom and his own return, whether in fact a real historical Jesus had said anything about them or not. Any movement following teachings of an historical figure, and certainly of the historical Jesus supposedly behind Q and the Gospels, should have possessed a much richer body of tradition associated with such a figure than Clement displays. Indeed, his catalogue is threadbare.[11]"

Later sources

Gospels

The Gospels are fictitious and not reliable historical sources. They are not independent and written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses.

"All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: the Gospel of Mark, the first one composed. Subsequent evangelists reworked Mark in their own interests and added new material. None of the evangelists show any concern for creating genuine history.[3]"

The Gospels are written in a highly literary style using an ordering and rhetorical techniques that are not found in historical sources. The Gospel of Mark may be an allegory with separate interpretations for both outsiders and initiates.

The biography of Jesus and his story are modified and refined though time, starting with the earliest Gospel (Mark) to the latest gospel (John).

Acts

Acts is also historically unreliable. [15]

"The Acts of the Apostles as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement is historically unreliable, a second century piece of legend-making.[3]"

Jesus's family and disciples suddenly disappear from the story after Acts 1 Bible-icon.png, implying they never existed.

Other sources are not independent

Other sources either rely on the Gospels as their source, or are fabricated.

"[Skeptics fail] to mention the comments about Jesus in the writings of the first-century historian Josephus.[16]"

Mythicists argue that Thallus and Josephus are not reliable. Other historians say that Josephus is genuine.[14]

"The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering.[11]"
"But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person – the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the “Christ” that was the focus of its worship.[14]"

Possible early mythicist groups

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

Ignatius calls on Christians to ignore those that say Jesus did not have an earthly existence.

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up, as in the same manner his Father will raise up us who believe in him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.[17]"
Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

This implies the existence of Christians that denied the things Ignatius is affirming. What is unclear is if this criticism is of Docetism or of mythicism.

"What is peculiar is not that Ignatius is convinced of the historicity of Jesus, but that he is very concerned to insist upon this far, against fellow Christians who were apparently denying some form of it. [...] However, it is not certain that Ignatius is contending which such Christians. [...] This appears to be an attack on Docetists, a diverse group of Christians who argued that Jesus never really became a man but only sent an illusion [...On the other hand, if] these Christians were teaching that these things were allegories for what was really a cosmic drama [...] then Ignatius's remarks would apply just as well.[2][...] But Ignatius never mentions Docetists. And the only texts we have that show anything like Docetism date a century later, and they don’t say anything like what’s in Ignatius [...] So how do we know what those whom Ignatius is responding to were actually teaching? [...] We aren’t told; but it sounds a lot more like mythicists (OHJ, pp. 317-20), the same ones 2 Peter was forged to rebut (OHJ, p. 351).[8]"

Apologists argue that there is little or no evidence of early belief in mythicism.[18]

"Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a past human man as an element of their faith. The type of Christ belief which became later orthodoxy developed only through the course of the second century, to eventually gain dominance toward its end. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical and his 'life story' real.[3]"

Ignatius

Ignatius claims that Jesus was "hidden from the world" and manifested himself as "a star shone forth from Heaven".[2]

Counter arguments

The epistles contain historical information

Proponents of a historical Jesus refer to the epistles and how they might refer to biographical details of Jesus that would imply that he existed on Earth.

"Paul actually knows quite a bit of historical details about Jesus and these come out in various places in his letters. One key example is how he recounts (in detail) what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26 Bible-icon.png).[16]"

This is as likely to be a heavenly Eurcharist as an earthly one. Paul prefaces his account "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you", meaning his source was revelation not testimony. The section reads like an instruction for future Christians, not a speech to people present at the time. Other contemporary Jewish cults had a concept of a heavenly Messianic saviour. Saying this section can be explained by a historical Jesus does not itself rule out the passage being explained by a mystical Jesus.

The Gospels and their supposed quotations of Jesus appear to be based on the epistles anyway, so this "historical fact" could well be a later invention based on the epistles. There is no direct quotation from Jesus in the epistles that matches the Gospels.

Mythicists claim their theory is compatible with all of the above verses.

The "brothers" of the Lord

The epistles mentions the "brothers" of the Lord. If Jesus had brothers, i.e. children of either Joseph or Mary, that would suggest he historically existed. Incidental biographical detail that is not part of the author's apologetic message is evidence of historicity.

"I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother."

Galatians 1:19 Bible-icon.png

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? "

1 Corinthians 9:5 Bible-icon.png

Richard Carrier and Robert Price agree that this is the strongest piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus,[19] but at the same time the title could simply be a cultic title similar to monastic orders calling fellow initiates "brother". He notes that the text does not say "brothers of Jesus". Since both possibilities are plausible, this evidence supports nether theory over the other. Carrier ignores references to brothers of Jesus in the Gospels as they are not reliable sources.

"However, Paul does not say “brother of Jesus,” but “brother of the Lord,” which can only be a cultic title (one does not become the brother of “the Lord” until the person in question is hailed “the Lord,” thus the phrase “brother of the Lord” is a creation of Christian ideology). Yes, he may have earned that cultic title by actually being the brother of Jesus. But he could also have earned it by simply being a baptized Christian.[20]"

Historicists counter argue that, in both verses, "brothers" are treated as distinct from "apostles", even though apostles were also believers.[19]

"Came from" David's seed "according to the flesh"

Romans 1:1-6 Bible-icon.png "According to the flesh" he "came from" David's seed.[14]

Carrier argues this is a political metaphor, not biological. The word "came from" ginomai used by Paul is not the word he normally used for being born, but for bodies created or resurrected directly by God.[21]

Most scholars think Jesus existed

Main Article: Most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection

Almost all scholars accept that some parts of the New Testament a myth. Many historians believe that most of the New Testament is myth.[2] It has been generally assumed among historians that these myths originated in some historical event, partly because this was the traditional view. There are many different historical Jesus theories which widely vary in which parts of scripture are myth or facts, and for which historians have not been able to reach a consensus. Apologists often make an argument from authority based on Biblical scholars that the historical theory is mainstream and that myth theories are fringe.[14]

"No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.[22]"
"The reason most Christmas articles simply want to rewrite the story of Jesus is because virtually all scholars agree–liberal and conservative alike–that there is little reason to doubt his existence. Indeed, so convinced are scholars that Jesus certainly existed, that it is difficult to even find scholars who might argue otherwise.[16]"

The problem is Biblical scholars have many biases, such as their own religious beliefs, that make them not a reliable authority on the Bible. Even if most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection, we need to carefully examine their claims. Carrier points out that historians have refuted various implausible Jesus myth theories but calls for a re-evaluation of what he considers to be the most plausible myth theory without a hasty generalization that all myth theories are false.[2]

The historical Jesus view actually comprises a multitude of different historical Jesus theories. Carrier argues that if they used valid historical methods, they should come to some consensus. Since there is no single historical Jesus theory, we immediately see many of this historians are using invalid methods. The consensus of historians on even a minimal subset of these "facts" is actually weak.

The epistles were not intended as biographies

"They were epistles, not Gospels, and therefore not intended to recount the words and deeds of Jesus. Tarico is confused about the genre of early Christian writings and assumes they would all cover the same territory.[16]"

Saying a section of the Bible is intended or not intended for a particular purpose is often based on confirmation bias. A good historian must be able to consider multiple hypothesises and compare them objectively. Readers need to approach the Bible with historical knowledge of the time but with fresh eyes as to the text's meaning. We need to ask ourselves how likely is this text to exist given hypothesis X?[2] With this approach, much of the New Testament is actually compatible with both historical and mythicist hypothesises (since it is so unreliable, neither option is ruled out). In other words, some apparent contradictions may be explained by either "different perspectives" or "story evolving over time" views. Saying it can be explained by "different perspectives" does not rule out the other plausible explanation.

"So when we approach interpretations of the Epistles of Paul (as with any evidence at all) we must look at each passage with the assumption that mythicism is true (something historians of Jesus have typically never done), and then estimate how likely it would be that the passage would look like that. And then look at the same passage with the assumption that historicity is true and do the same. The latter probability much be even high. But is it as high as the probability on mythicism? (Or higher?)[2]"

The epistles are fairly lengthy works that often discuss doctrines and practices in the early church. Even if they are a very incomplete record of what was written or discussed, it is highly unlikely that they never, at some point, they would referring to the actual life of Jesus.

"[It's] improbable that even causal or incidental mentions of historical facts about Jesus would never arise, not once in twenty thousand words. [...] Letters about persons almost always contain historical references to them. [...] In short, it is simply not conceivable that the historical Jesus never said or did anything, nor was anything ever said or done to him, that was relevant to resolving any dispute or supporting any teaching raised in these letters, or to satisfying anyone's curiosity, or even just to be mentioned in passing. [...] Quite simply, the more you write about a man, the more the probability rises that at some point you'll mention in passing at least some such detail about him [...][2]"

Comparing evidence to other historical figures

Main Article: Other historical figures are accepted on weaker evidence than Jesus
"But our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous – they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.[14]"
"It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place.[23]"

The evidence of Jesus is sometimes compared with other historical figures or events, including: Julius Caesar[24], Alexander the Great[24], Spartacus[25], the Holocaust, Pontius Pilate[23], Hannibal[14] and others.

This is factually incorrect. Historical figures and events have multiple sources, often which are primary sources together with physical evidence.[26] By comparison, the evidence for Jesus is a collection of writings that are not independent, that are anonymous, that have no physical evidence, that are written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses, and written as religious scripture not objective history.

Carrier argues that it is inappropriate to compare Jesus to other historical figures because characters with the attributes of Jesus are usually mythical e.g. people worshipped as Gods tend to be mythical not historical. For this reason, demonstrating the historicity of Jesus requires a higher standard of evidence.[25]

Argument from silence is a weak argument

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

An argument of silence is based on what extant documents don't discuss, specifically in situations in which we would expect the author to make a comment. The use of the argument from silence is controversial within academic history[27][14] and generally considered weaker than arguments based on positive claims in historical sources. Some argue that the theory that Jesus did not exist is relatively weak because it often uses this type of argument.

"The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for at least a century but it has never been accepted as a mainstream theory. This is for good reason. It is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading, and an awful lot of wishful thinking.[28]"
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secular historians would have little interest in a stir created by a backwater preacher from Galilee. This simply would not have been on their radar screen. Arguments from silence are widely regarded as fallacious precisely because we don’t always know why historians talk about some things and not others.[16]"

Richard Carrier argues that an argument from silence can be useful when the other evidence is ambiguous:

"[W]hen trust and doubt are in balance over all the existing evidence, an Argument from Silence can tip the scales.[29]"

Some historians regard the argument from silence to be valid if properly used:

"To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.[30]"

The argument from silence is distinct from an argument from ignorance, which is based on the lack sources that support an alternative theory.

The evidence for a mythical Jesus is not only an argument from silence. The other arguments for mythicism need to be addressed, such as the content of Acts, the Epistles and extra-Biblical evidence (1 Clement, Ignatius, and the Ascension of Isaiah, etc).

"My own case has laid an equal, if not paramount, emphasis on what is to be found in the epistles, on the actual information presented by Paul and other early writers in describing their faith movement and the object of its worship.[3]"

The Gospels show "different aspects" of Jesus

"Yes, the Gospels offer different perspectives on the life of Jesus, but there is no reason to regard these as contradictory. A lot of these so-called contradictions evaporate upon closer inspection, especially when methods of ancient historiography are taken into account (which are quite different than modern ones).[16]"

Apologists often implicitly assumes that each book of the Bible is an independent source about the life of Jesus, based on the author's personal experiences and perspective. This is not supported by the available evidence as the Gospels are not independent of each other. Sections often use the same wording and at other times they switch add radically different details. This is not what we would expect form reliable historical accounts. Reusing existing texts word-for-word can be better explained by the "story evolving over time" view. The style is also not that of a first person account.

Paul assumes his readers were already familiar with the biography of Jesus

Apologists argue that Paul assumes his readers were already familiar with the biography of Jesus.

Even if they were, Paul would still refer to it to clarify the doctrine of Christianity and as an exemplar of good behavior.[9]

Jews would not have accepted heretical views

Supporters of the historical theory argue that Christianity could not have been invited based it originated in a religion with strict conformity of belief.

"[Mythicism fails] to do justice to the unambiguous evidence that what we now refer to as Christianity arose in a Jewish context that was committed to monotheism, observant of the Jewish Law, and unlikely to create a fictional Messiah based on pagan myths. [31]"
"This is particularly hard because of the masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews – a group for whom the idea of adopting anything “pagan” would have been utterly horrific.[14]"

In fact, Judaism at the time showed a wide diversity of beliefs. There is evidence that Judiasm previously syncretized with other religions e.g. Judaism incorporating ideas from neighbouring cultures, such as from Zoroastrianism. Such innovations would not have been marketed as foreign but as originally Jewish ideas. Also, Christianity did not arise in the orthodox sections of Judaism but rather the radical minority groups. All or the vast majority of theological concepts in the earliest Christianity can be traced to earlier or contemporary Jewish sects, including a dying-and-rising intermediary demi-God as lord and savior, exultation of martyrs and the role of human sacrifice, often by selectively extracting sections of the Torah.[2]

"[...] Christianity did not originate within conservative or elite Judaism but from the radical fringes, as a protest movement against conservative elite Judaism, and thus represents the very kind of heresy conservatives were always combatting.[2]"

If the historical Jesus hypothesis is accepted, this shows that some Jews were able to accept a messiah that was contrary to orthodox Judaism. Since an earthly messiah could be accepted, a heavenly messiah could be accepted by some Jews. This argument against mysticism refutes itself.[2]

Earl Doherty argues that the Jews of the time could not have deified an earthly man, but could have easily deified a cosmic man.[3] Carrier argues that this actually happens, such as in the case of Cargo Cults, and that Christianity probably originated in fringe Jewish groups.[2]

No early critics of Christianity arguing for mythicism

We have no records of early critics of Christianity arguing against the historicity of Jesus.[5][18] Carrier points out we have no records of critics at all, indicating this is an argument from silence.[2]

"What eventually emerged from this riot of Christianities was a form of “orthodoxy” that had all the elements of Christianity today: the Trinity, Jesus as the divine incarnate, a physical resurrection etc. But we know of many of the other rivals to this orthodoxy largely thanks to orthodox writings attacking them and refuting their claims and doctrines. Doherty expects us to believe that despite all these apologetic literature condemning and refuting a wide range of “heresies” there is not one that bothers to even mention this original Christianity that taught Jesus was never on earth at all. [...] Such an idea would be a boon to the various Gnostic branches of Christianity, which emphasised his spiritual/mystical aspects and saw him as an emissary from a purely spiritual world to help us escape the physical dimension. A totally non-historical, purely mystical Jesus would have suited their purposes perfectly. [14]"

Ignatius does argue against believers who claim that Jesus was not truly on earth. What is unclear is if this criticism is of Docetism or of mythicism.

We have reliable historical sources dated close to the life of Jesus

Main Article: The Bible is not a reliable historical source
Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:
"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.[23]"

Historical theory proponents here claim that parts of the New Testament are historical sources. The epistles do not describe a historical Jesus. The gospels are historically unreliable, written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses. The hypothetical Q source is highly speculative.[20]

Paul would have known the other disciples

"Paul would have known the immediate disciples of Jesus, such as Peter and John, and would have had access to many other people who lived during the time of Jesus. If Jesus never existed, are we to think that Peter and John just lied to Paul?[16]"

This assumes that Peter and John taught an earthly Jesus. As far as we know, they could have also preached a mythical Jesus just as Paul the Apostle did. Their interactions with an earthly Jesus are a later fictitious invention.

No influence of mystery cults on early Christianity

Not all historians agree with mythicists on the influences on early Christianity, e.g. Bart D. Ehrman[32] This counter argument is highly applicably to theories like Christianity originated as an amalgamation of earlier pagan religions, which often used less than rigorous scholarship. However, it is less clear if this counter argument is justified against newer Jesus myth theories.

"Not a single early Christian source supports Doherty's claim that Paul and those before him thought of Jesus as a spiritual, not a human being, who was executed in the spiritual, not the earthly realm.[...] Among all our archaeological findings, there is none that suggests that pagan mystery cults exerted any influence on Aramaic-speaking rural Palestinian Judaism in the 20s and 30s of the first century. And this is the milieu out of which faith in Jesus the crucified messiah, as persecuted and then embraced by Paul, emerged.[33]"
"[...] there was no causal connection between pagan myths and the origin of Christian beliefs about Jesus. [...] It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods.[34]"

Mythicists contest these claims.[35] The crucified messiah idea comes from a reinterpretation the Old Testament.

No pre-existing myths are parallels to Jesus

Apologists argue that there is little similarity between pre-existing myths and the story of Jesus. This counter argument is highly applicably to theories like Christianity originated as an amalgamation of earlier pagan religions, which often used less than rigorous scholarship. However, it is less clear if this counter argument is justified against newer Jesus myth theories.

"[...] scholars came to realize that the alleged parallels are spurious. The ancient world was a virtual cornucopia of myths of gods and heroes. Comparative studies in religion and literature require sensitivity to their similarities and differences, or distortion and confusion inevitably result. [...] The Gospel stories of Jesus' virginal conception are, in fact, without parallel in the ancient Near East. [...] None of these is [resurrection myths] parallel to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead. [...] In fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all![34]"
"[T]here are serious doubts about whether there were in fact dying-rising gods in the pagan world, and if there were, whether they were anything like the dying-rising Jesus.[33]"

Ehrman claims that there was no earlier belief in a god that was born of a virgin and was dying-and-rising.

"We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead [...] But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that.[23]"

Carrier counter-argues that these separate beliefs were common at the time.

"No competent mythicist makes this claim. Rather, they claim that virgin-born gods were a common phenomenon in the region at the time and dying-and-rising gods were a common phenomenon in the region at the time (in precisely the way these were not anywhere else, e.g. in ancient China), and so for Jews to suddenly start claiming they have one, too, looks pretty easily explained in terms of standard theories of cultural diffusion.[20]"

Jews did not believe in a crucified messiah

"prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah"
"The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd. [...] It’s hard to see why anyone would invent the idea of a crucified Messiah and create these problems.[14]"

Carrier argues the case that they did in his essay The Dying Messiah Redux.[36]

Early Christians were not interested in the biography of Jesus

Early Christians were not interested in the biography of Jesus.

If that were true, no such details would be been preserved for the Gospel writers.[2]

Historical theory not ruled out

While Richard Carrier concludes that the mythicist theory is stronger than a historical Jesus, the evidence is not strong enough to rule out the latter theory.

"Finally, all this is not to say that the historicity of Jesus has been refuted or that it is now incredible. Many arguments for historicity remain. They simply are not as abundant, strong, and coherent as Doherty's thesis, no matter how abundant, strong, and coherent they may be. That Jesus existed remains possible, and if Doherty could take early Christians to court for the crime of fabricating a historical Jesus, they would go free on reasonable doubt.[29]"

While we have not come to any firm conclusions about the existence of Jesus, we cannot say that the historical Jesus is the most likely or default explanation of available evidence.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Richard Carrier, Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind
  2. 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42 2.43 Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, 2014
  3. 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man: The Case for a Mythical Jesus, 2009
  4. David Fitzgerald, Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus
  5. 5.0 5.1 Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament
  6. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke, Volume 1, ed. Craig A. Evans
  7. Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion, 1996
  8. 8.0 8.1 How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?, 9 Nov 2017
  9. 9.0 9.1 Gerd Ludemann, Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus
  10. Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?, April 1999
  12. [1]
  13. [2]
  14. 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20 Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.
  15. Richard I. Pervo, The Mystery of Acts
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Did Jesus Even Exist? Responding to 5 Objections Raised by @rawstory, December 17, 2015
  17. Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians
  18. 18.0 18.1 Jon Sorensen, A Heresy as Evidence of the Historical Jesus, Catholic Answers, 6/3/2013
  19. 19.0 19.1 [3]
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism
  21. Richard Carrier, The Cosmic Seed of David, October 18, 2017
  22. Otto Betz
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, Huffington Post, Updated May 20, 2012
  24. 24.0 24.1 [4]
  25. 25.0 25.1 Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?
  26. So What About Hannibal, Then?
  27. Timothy McGrew, The Argument from Silence, Acta Analytica, June 2014, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 215–228
  28. James Hannam, "Is Jesus Christ a Myth?" (Part One), Patheos, 2010, para. 1
  29. 29.0 29.1 Richard Carrier, Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002)
  30. Gilbert Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149
  31. [5]
  32. [6]
  33. 33.0 33.1 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 2012
  34. 34.0 34.1 William Lane Craig, #90 Jesus and Pagan Mythology, January 05, 2009
  35. [7]
  36. [8]