Nailed: 10 Christian myths that show Jesus never existed

[avi]

Why not a historical (not divine) Herakles ? It seems not impossible to me.

Thanks for this question, Kunigunde. May we start with some definitions?

1. fiction: = not true;

2. legend: = hyperbole, exaggeration;

3. myth: = supernatural attribution.

By definition, Zeus, and all other Greek Gods, are "mythical", not simply legendary, not simply fictitious, but rather, capable of behaviour which is definitely not humanly possible, i.e. engaging in action contrary to the laws of physics.

When Herakles' father, Zeus, mated with a human female, the resultant zygote lacked human paternal DNA. By definition, therefore, Herakles could not have been "historical". Herakles and his demigod cousin, Jesus of Nazareth, are BOTH nonhuman, supernatural entities. Therefore, they cannot have existed in history. It makes no difference which "human" attributes are assigned to these fictitious characters. Their mythical character is specified in their paternal chromosomes, or rather, the lack thereof.

If a "human" Herakles seems possible to you, then you simply do not understand the definition of "human". Neither Jesus nor Herakles can be historical, because neither of them could have existed. There are no gods, and therefore there are no offspring from gods....Nor, should there be, for, omnipotent, supernatural deities have no need for children... Goatherders need children to watch the flock. Farmers need children. Gods have no need for helpers. All of these Greek myths have one element in common: they all convey human frailties upon the fictional, supernatural deities under discussion. Herakles died and was resurrected, ascending then to Mount Olympus, where he resides at the side of his father, Zeus.

Maybe it will be helpful, to think of a sabertooth tiger. Yes, there are no such huge animals alive today. However, they are not mythical creatures, capable of mechanical feats that defy the laws of physics. They did live in the past, and they are historical. They did have both maternal and paternal DNA. Compare them to vampires. Vampires do not exist, and never have existed, and never will exist, for they are simply mythical characters, not historical figures.

7 out of 10 of these guys are myths. But how do we know which one of them.

I don't know which characters you intend to label as "myths", but I would sound a note of caution: Be careful with your description Kunigunde, for many on this forum are rather sloppy, with regard to the distinction between "legend" and "myth". Legendary attribution refers to hyperbolic activity, which corresponds to an exaggerated tendency, that nevertheless remains within the realm of reality, and does not violate the laws of physics: sabertooth tigers
Mythical beings, on the other hand, like "Babe the blue ox", can also be huge, but not genuine creatures, they are simply fictional entities, possessing supernatural qualities.

Perhaps a more reasonable claim is that 7 of 10 characters in a story are fictitious. That was the point of asking you earlier today, to comment on the characters from War and Peace. Some of those characters were genuine humans, e.g. Napolean and Catherine the Great, and Marshall Kutuzov, while most of the characters were fictional entities created by Tolstoy. It is important not to confound "myth" with fictional. Myths ALWAYS refer to supernatural phenomena. Fiction, on the other hand, can be simply imaginary, but not supernatural. Jesus is a mythical figure, not an historical person, because Jesus was a classic Greek demigod. History exists only for actual living humans, not for fictional characters.

Hope this helps you to understand why neither Herakles nor Jesus could have been historical.

[GakuseiDon]

It is important not to confound "myth" with fictional. Myths ALWAYS refer to supernatural phenomena.

Strangely ironic, given the title of this thread and the contents of the OP. Is Myth 3: "Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus" a supernatural phenomenon?

Jesus is a mythical figure, not an historical person, because Jesus was a classic Greek demigod.

Even if Jesus were a human (as for example portrayed in the Gospel of Mark), the story of his death and resurrection is a myth. A myth is a meaningful story. Often it includes supernatural elements, but it doesn't have to be. I would say the "Science vs Religion" conflict is largely a myth, a meaningful story that some modern people like to adopt as part of their worldview.

Legends are traditional stories that were generally thought to have occurred at some point. Jesus walking on water was probably a legend that was incorporated into the broader myth story.

Hope this helps you to understand why neither Herakles nor Jesus could have been historical.

It's easy enough to propose that legends grew around a historical Herakles, which eventually formed part of the myth of Herakles. I think you are being a bit hard on Kunigunde Kreuzerin. What he wrote made sense. The problem is more around getting tight definitions of words like "historical", "legend" and "myth". Certainly historical people can be involved in legends and myths, whichever way you define them.

[avi]

Hello Don,

Strangely ironic, given the title of this thread and the contents of the OP. Is Myth 3: "Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus" a supernatural phenomenon?

I suspect that the author would suggest that "myth" is simply something untrue. Many authors, including some members of this forum, employ "myth" as indicating "FALSE", or "untrue", or "fictitious". Myth is not synonymous with fictitious.

It is true, that all myths are fictitious. It is not true, that all fictitious accounts, are myths. Myths are exclusively, those fictitious episodes/places/times/objects which DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, i.e. supernatural phenomena, "above", or "beyond" nature.

So, the author erred, by writing "myths", instead of "fictitious accounts". Josephus wrote who knows what? I haven't a clue. His writings, and his whole history, seem utterly bizarre to me. I have absolutely no idea why Emperor Vespasian would have invited this traitorous Jewish rebel to Rome, to live in lavish circumstances, writing tomes in a language (Greek) he did not know. I certainly don't get excited about the "testimonium flavium". What excites me, is the fact that our oldest extant copy of his work, as with Tacitus' Annals, comes from an Italian monastery, copied in the 11th century.

Perhaps you can teach me, Don, what does Jose write about Josephus in his famous Olam Rabbah, the chronicle of Jewish history up to the time of Hadrian, composed in the second century CE?

Even if Jesus were a human (as for example portrayed in the Gospel of Mark), the story of his death and resurrection is a myth. A myth is a meaningful story. Often it includes supernatural elements, but it doesn't have to be. I would say the "Science vs Religion" conflict is largely a myth, a meaningful story that some modern people like to adopt as part of their worldview.

No, Don, you are misusing the word "myth". The "Science vs. Religion" conflict is most certainly not a myth, since there is nothing supernatural about a debate. The substance of this issue is ultimately opinion, but, the absence of empirical data does not correspond to "myth". I think you here confound "belief based on faith", versus "belief based upon empirical inquiry". These two, in turn, may be summarized as ACCEPTANCE sans inquiry vs. DOUBT absent confirmation by empirical data. Neither of these perspectives has anything to do with divine intervention. They are simply two human points of view. The word "myth" has no place here.

A myth does not need to be a "meaningful story". Krypton is a mythical entity. Distant planets exist. Distant planets may support lifeforms, some even, non-carbon based. However, Krypton defies the periodic chart of Mendeleev. It is beyond nature. It exists only in imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev

Legends are traditional stories that were generally thought to have occurred at some point. Jesus walking on water was probably a legend that was incorporated into the broader myth story.

No, Don, wrong. Jesus walking on water is most certainly NOT a legend, but a myth. Why, Don? Legends are hyperbolic, exaggerated reports of accomplishments, seemingly defying nature, but nevertheless executed within the confines of the laws of physics. Houdini was a legendary figure, who could hold his breath, and escape in "miraculous" fashion. Good stuff. But, legend, not myth. Walking on water, Don, defies the laws of physics, and is therefore not genuine, but fake. The claim of walking on water, represents supernatural abilities. Myth, not legend. I don't know why folks, especially on this forum, enjoy confounding the two words, diluting the meaning of both.

It's easy enough to propose that legends grew around a historical Herakles, which eventually formed part of the myth of Herakles.

Don, do you suppose that Clark Kent was a real human, and that legends grew around him, legends which eventually became mythical??? How strange.

Herakles is a fictional character, as unhistorical as 13 year old Natasha Rostov. The distinction is simple: Natasha, though fictitious, did not flirt with supernatural entities. Herakles, contrarily, engaged in all manner of feats which defy gravity, or otherwise repudiate the laws of nature. Natasha: legend--from start to finish; Herakles: myth from start to finish.

There was no Jesus of Nazareth. There was no Herakles. There was no Natasha Rostov. There was no Clark Kent. They were all fictitious characters. Those characters lacking human DNA, are moreover, not only fictitious, but also mythical, i.e. Kent, Jesus, Herakles.

[spin]

It is important not to confound "myth" with fictional. Myths ALWAYS refer to supernatural phenomena.

Strangely ironic, given the title of this thread and the contents of the OP. Is Myth 3: "Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus" a supernatural phenomenon?

Good that you pick this up. The use of "myth" in such a forum as this is so often poorly thought out, loose or ambiguous. Words so often gain secondary meanings and people do not see that they have stepped out of one and into another. It leads to confusion for both reader and writer.

[Nick Peters]

It is interesting here. Most modern scholarship actual shuts up about the historicity of Jesus. For example, I had to deal with a couple of archaeologists who worked an important site in Syria a while back and they both held the view that you couldn't trust anything that came from biblical scholars. I had at the time expressed my interest in the DSS and you could see them thinking "oh-oh, looney alert". It wasn't me: it was the subject, dominated by biblical studies. You can't talk about "modern scholarship" as though one should be impressed from afar here. We have to face the fact that the vast majority of biblical scholars exempt themselves from objectivity by being adherents of the faith whose literature they study.

Let's see. There's a claim about most modern scholarship. Reference for this? A couple of unknown archaeologists somehwere. I don't know their names or their credentials. Now you claim that the vast majority of biblical scholars are adherents of the faith.

This is false. Most scholars at the Society of Biblical Literature would not be considered as orthodox Christians. They will resolutely state that not only did Jesus exist, but we can know several facts about Him. The idea that he never existed is really a fringe position. It does not pass peer-review.

It is of little significance that Liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, Jew, etc. toe the scholarly line. They are generally in no position to meaningfully do other.

It is of great significance. They'd have nothing to gain and why should we think that scholars will seek to defend a position that they think is really false? What information is held about their motives?

Sorry, Nick, but you are confusing generic brand Jesus mythicism with the 'Jesus myth' hypothesis. The latter is the view that the Jesus religion is founded on a complex mythos, for example, the views of Earl Doherty who advocated that the earliest believers held to the notion that Jesus was crucified in the lowest of the heavens. The generic brand Jesus mythicism is not mythicism per se, but the simple view that Jesus did not exist.

Let's see. I stated it as a the view that Jesus did not exist. There was no historical Jesus. You're stating it is the simple view that Jesus did not exist.

Not seeing the problem here. Yes. I am also familiar with the argument of Doherty that Jesus was crucified in the lowest of the heavens. There's a reason the scholarly world doesn't take it seriously.

Consiracy theories concerning a Roman invention of the Jesus religion also hold that Jesus did not exist, but they are not mythicism. True mythicism may imply Jesus did not exist, but that is not its focus. It's interest is the myth seen to be at the heart of the cult.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if it's Doherty or Roman conspiracy. Any claim to say that Jesus does not exist is what is being dealt with.

First we have to establish existence. I personally am agnostic on the subject. The past is full of entities whose existence has not been established, but cannot be excluded. If you strip away all the later traditions from Arthur, can you say whether he existed or not? History is full of black holes from which little or no certain evidence can be derived. A tradition based on a figure may or may not be derived from a real figure. If the indications of that tradition leads you into a black hole then you have no way of corroborating the veracity of the tradition.

You would need to show that this is the case with Jesus. We have early testimony of Jesus and we have non-Christian testimony of him as well in Josephus and Tacitus, especially Tacitus.

I'm pretty certain he is not talking of the virgin birth, but the possibility of Jesus having in the mythos come down from heaven as Marcion indicates. Tertullian spends a lot of time looking at the implications of Marcion's gospel having Jesus come down to Capernaum. (See Contra Marcion, ref will be dredged up if needed.) It would seem that Marcion's Jesus wasn't born of a woman.

Very well.

I recommend that you start thinking that some people here have read "the best scholarship you can find on the issue" and have found it not as hot as you might hope. We don't advocate the position that Jesus did not exist (though some people on this forum seem to hold that view), but that using stringent historical methodology does not yield a historical Jesus. He may or may not have been real, but the evidence is insufficient. Scholarship in the field has to stop being blindly maximalist and re-find what it can of an objective approach to the subject.

Then one will need to provide reasons why they do not. In most works, the idea that Jesus never even existed is not even given a footnote. The idea is more sensationalist and is not held by those with peer-review and reputable publishing houses do not publish books advocating the view.

We come from a historical context in which the existence of Jesus was accepted a priori and a humonguous apologetic apparatus has defended Jesus over nearly two millenia. The context we have inherited didn't need history until a bit over 200 years ago, but the impact of humanism followed by the enlightenment has forced christian religious studies to quickly adapt to wearing historical trappings. Obviously christian scholars found Jesus historical. It was just a short step back from the credent position, but we cannot accept an inherited Jesus.

Then don't. By all means read the liberal and non-Christian scholars. You'll still see them arguing what can be known about the historical Jesus. Yet at the same time, don't discount a scholar just because he's a Christian. Look at the arguments.

We cannot accept on a literal basis a body of literature preserved by christian scribes,

This depends also on what is meant by literal.

whose efforts in the distant past include the production of non-historical works,

Examples?

of pseudonymous works including several by Paul,

Such works need to be shown to be pseudonymous.

of interplations such as the ending of Mark, the adulterous woman in John,

These were known to be interpolations incredibly early on. There's no new news on that from the Enlightenment.

the trinitarian lemma in 1 John 5,

Also known to be an interpolation. Erasmus would not include it in his translation until he was shown a Greek manuscript with it, which he was eventually with the ink still drying no doubt.

the Testimonium Flavianum and who knows what else.

Most scholars today do agree that some of the TF is interpolated, but not all. This is especially so with the second reference to Jesus that would point back to a prior one.

The task of anyone advocating a historical Jesus requires substantive evidence and so far all those scholars who advocate a historical Jesus have failed to do anything other than literary criticism and applied hermeneutics.

It would be nice to see some names and examples here.

[stephan happy huller]

Now you claim that the vast majority of biblical scholars are adherents of the faith.

Ummm. It's called Facebook. I am friends with a number of these folks from all different schools of thought. Just look at their posts and comments and confessions. Why would anyone pick up an interest in religion unless they had that background already? It's not like this stuff has any relevance in the 'real world' of most people. Most people don't give a hoot about this.

Most scholars at the Society of Biblical Literature would not be considered as orthodox Christians. They will resolutely state that not only did Jesus exist, but we can know several facts about Him. The idea that he never existed is really a fringe position. It does not pass peer-review.

But that doesn't mean anything. A lot of things used to 'assumed' until they were disproved. I remember seeing books being taken out of my university library in Canada which 'assumed' the inferiority of negroes was 'scientific.' Science is a tool. Scientific analysis is unnatural. It is natural to have unproved assumptions develop into firm assumptions. We do it everyday. Look at Joseph Hoffmann. He's an atheist and he is a champion of rational thought and scientific examination - to question everything - and he confesses on Facebook he didn't see his wife leaving him. Broad-sided him completely. It's not natural to stand at arms length from cherished assumptions. The only thing that helps is training and/or LSD.

Very little thought up until now has been given to the topic of the existence of Jesus. It has been just 'assumed' to be true. There will be a day that a journal somewhere publishes a paper that basically concedes there is no compelling evidence either way with respect to Jesus's existence or non-existence. Then what? Will you think the issue is settled? Of course not. You're a partisan. Your only here at this forum is to make a prejudice of yours sound reasonable before an audience of assumed inferiors. There is little difference between you and the other jackasses at this forum who hate Christianity and want to disprove Jesus's existence.

You want to imagine that this forum is filled with unreasonable 'haters' and there are a few who participate in these discussions. But I am not one of them. I don't hate Christianity. I don't hate Jesus (whatever he might have been). I went to a decent university. I have published articles in scholarly journals and am about to participate in a major conference with a prestigious name and I am not certain that Jesus was a human being. I think it is more probable than not the story of Jesus is based on a real historical figure. It's better than flipping a coin and getting heads. But not much better.

[Peter Kirby]

Now you claim that the vast majority of biblical scholars are adherents of the faith.

Ummm. It's called Facebook. I am friends with a number of these folks from all different schools of thought. Just look at their posts and comments and confessions. Why would anyone pick up an interest in religion unless they had that background already. The only exception I know is a drug induced theophany. Most people don't give a hoot about this.

His view about scholars being faithless is just a canard out of a certain brand of apologetics. Forgive him; he knows not whereof he speaks.

[spin]

It is interesting here. Most modern scholarship actual shuts up about the historicity of Jesus. For example, I had to deal with a couple of archaeologists who worked an important site in Syria a while back and they both held the view that you couldn't trust anything that came from biblical scholars. I had at the time expressed my interest in the DSS and you could see them thinking "oh-oh, looney alert". It wasn't me: it was the subject, dominated by biblical studies. You can't talk about "modern scholarship" as though one should be impressed from afar here. We have to face the fact that the vast majority of biblical scholars exempt themselves from objectivity by being adherents of the faith whose literature they study.

Let's see. There's a claim about most modern scholarship. Reference for this? A couple of unknown archaeologists somehwere. I don't know their names or their credentials. Now you claim that the vast majority of biblical scholars are adherents of the faith.

I gave an anecdotal account, not a peer published treatise. Get real.

This is false. Most scholars at the Society of Biblical Literature would not be considered as orthodox Christians. They will resolutely state that not only did Jesus exist, but we can know several facts about Him. The idea that he never existed is really a fringe position. It does not pass peer-review.

Naturally nobody said anything about "orthodox christians" whatever you consider that to be. And who cares about what these people assert? Apparently you do.

It is of little significance that Liberal, conservative, atheist, Christian, Jew, etc. toe the scholarly line. They are generally in no position to meaningfully do other.

It is of great significance. They'd have nothing to gain and why should we think that scholars will seek to defend a position that they think is really false? What information is held about their motives?

It's not about gain. It's about how you proceed whn you don't have any acquaintance with the subject.

Sorry, Nick, but you are confusing generic brand Jesus mythicism with the 'Jesus myth' hypothesis. The latter is the view that the Jesus religion is founded on a complex mythos, for example, the views of Earl Doherty who advocated that the earliest believers held to the notion that Jesus was crucified in the lowest of the heavens. The generic brand Jesus mythicism is not mythicism per se, but the simple view that Jesus did not exist.

Let's see. I stated it as a the view that Jesus did not exist. There was no historical Jesus. You're stating it is the simple view that Jesus did not exist.

Whoosh. Mythicism is about myth, not about existence. If I say there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, I'm not saying Jesus did not exist. You are not being logic, just tunnel-visioned.

Not seeing the problem here.

You need to use your eyes. I'm not interested in you defending status quo perceptions. A mythicist might say that Jesus did not exist, so might a "fictionalist". Certainly neither of them are historicists, but "fictionalists" are not mythicists.

Yes. I am also familiar with the argument of Doherty that Jesus was crucified in the lowest of the heavens. There's a reason the scholarly world doesn't take it seriously.

Consiracy theories concerning a Roman invention of the Jesus religion also hold that Jesus did not exist, but they are not mythicism. True mythicism may imply Jesus did not exist, but that is not its focus. It's interest is the myth seen to be at the heart of the cult.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if it's Doherty or Roman conspiracy. Any claim to say that Jesus does not exist is what is being dealt with.

Tunnel vision.

First we have to establish existence. I personally am agnostic on the subject. The past is full of entities whose existence has not been established, but cannot be excluded. If you strip away all the later traditions from Arthur, can you say whether he existed or not? History is full of black holes from which little or no certain evidence can be derived. A tradition based on a figure may or may not be derived from a real figure. If the indications of that tradition leads you into a black hole then you have no way of corroborating the veracity of the tradition.

You would need to show that this is the case with Jesus. We have early testimony of Jesus and we have non-Christian testimony of him as well in Josephus and Tacitus, especially Tacitus.

No you don't. You have texts preserved through the agency of christian scribes, scribes who have shown that texts are to some degree fluid. Just think of the TF. You might arbitrarily think some of it is recoverable but it is certain that it has been tendentiously altered. You cannot naively parade christian preserved texts as though they provide solid evidence for christian interests.

I recommend that you start thinking that some people here have read "the best scholarship you can find on the issue" and have found it not as hot as you might hope. We don't advocate the position that Jesus did not exist (though some people on this forum seem to hold that view), but that using stringent historical methodology does not yield a historical Jesus. He may or may not have been real, but the evidence is insufficient. Scholarship in the field has to stop being blindly maximalist and re-find what it can of an objective approach to the subject.

Then one will need to provide reasons why they do not.

That is not how scholarship works elsewhere. You make a substantive claim and you are required to supply evidence to support it.

In most works, the idea that Jesus never even existed is not even given a footnote. The idea is more sensationalist and is not held by those with peer-review and reputable publishing houses do not publish books advocating the view.

So? Would you have expected non-tendentious analyses of the west under the Soviet regime?

We come from a historical context in which the existence of Jesus was accepted a priori and a humonguous apologetic apparatus has defended Jesus over nearly two millenia. The context we have inherited didn't need history until a bit over 200 years ago, but the impact of humanism followed by the enlightenment has forced christian religious studies to quickly adapt to wearing historical trappings. Obviously christian scholars found Jesus historical. It was just a short step back from the credent position, but we cannot accept an inherited Jesus.

Then don't. By all means read the liberal and non-Christian scholars.

Would you please stop giving reading advice?

You'll still see them arguing what can be known about the historical Jesus. Yet at the same time, don't discount a scholar just because he's a Christian. Look at the arguments.

I have looked at the arguments. Don't expect you can come along and presume to know things about people here after being here for five minutes.

We cannot accept on a literal basis a body of literature preserved by christian scribes,

This depends also on what is meant by literal.

whose efforts in the distant past include the production of non-historical works,

Examples?

Umm, the examples you should get from what followed the comma.

of pseudonymous works including several by Paul,

Such works need to be shown to be pseudonymous.

Perhaps you've missed out on the last century's analyses of Paul's works.

of interplations such as the ending of Mark, the adulterous woman in John,

These were known to be interpolations incredibly early on. There's no new news on that from the Enlightenment.

Jesus, who cares about when? The fact that there were interpolations is the issue. The scribal tradition has changed texts.

the trinitarian lemma in 1 John 5,

Also known to be an interpolation. Erasmus would not include it in his translation until he was shown a Greek manuscript with it, which he was eventually with the ink still drying no doubt.

Yes, the christian scribal tradition interfered with texts.

the Testimonium Flavianum and who knows what else.

Most scholars today do agree that some of the TF is interpolated, but not all. This is especially so with the second reference to Jesus that would point back to a prior one.

This style of analysis is arbitrary. We know that the text was interfered with by christian scribes (hence its mention here), but the approach of removing the acknowledgedly offensive mterial in no way guarantees that what is left is kosher.

The task of anyone advocating a historical Jesus requires substantive evidence and so far all those scholars who advocate a historical Jesus have failed to do anything other than literary criticism and applied hermeneutics.

It would be nice to see some names and examples here.

You're such a big one on names. All you've given is the nameless consensus of biblical scholars. Perhaps you can provide a few examples of specific arguments for a historical Jesus that are not simply based on literary criticism, appeals to christian preserved literature or applied hermeneutics.

If you haven't got the issue about christian preserved literature yet, would you trust the N-S-A to be noble and objective with the data it collects when you've read for example about operatives cyber-stalking women?