Nailed: 10 Christian myths that show Jesus never existed

[arnoldo]

It is quite possible that later writers with the advantage of hindsight made the crossing much more significant than it appeared to be at the time.

Thanks, Andrew, as always, very perceptive.

I think you will agree with me, however, that Julius Caesar was not universally loved or respected, at the time of his death, and therefore, a century later, could it not also be the case, that subsequent historians diminished, rather than highlighted, the significance of Caesar crossing the Rubicon?

At the end of the day, what we seek, is not opinion, but evidence. We resort to fumbling analogies, like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, because we lack evidence about Jesus' life.

‘It is astonishing to see so great a number of men.’
Hannibal sensed his anxiety and decided to turn it his own way: ‘Yes, Gisgo, you are right, but there is one thing you have not noticed.’
‘What is that, sir?’ asked the puzzled officer.
‘In all that great number of men opposite us there is not a single one named Gisgo.’

What do we know about Jesus? Nothing except what others have written. What do we know about Hannibal of Tunisia?
Nothing, except what others have written about him. We know a bit from Livy, Roman historian, writing two centuries after Hannibal's death. How reliable is his information?

What makes Hannibal, a figure of historicity, of legendary proportions, but NOT MYTHICAL, and Jesus, also of legendary proportion, but not historical, rather, of mythical dimension?

Hannibal's existence is attested to by many independent sources. Jesus is attested by no one, save other religious figures, with an axe to grind.

This source agrees that Hannibal had no contemorary

Yet we are told that there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts for Jesus. Indeed, there are none for Alexander the Great. Tim O’Neill at Armarium Magnum gives a comparison with this in using Hannibal. As he says:

“To highlight how easily a peasant nobody like Jesus could very easily pass without any surviving contemporary notice at all, I held up the example of someone at the other end of the scale of fame and significance to Jesus and who, despite this, also has zero contemporary references that have survived to us. Hannibal was about as far from a Jewish peasant preacher in terms of fame and significance as you could get in the ancient world, yet we have no contemporary references to him at all. None. This shows that the nature of ancient source material is such that we have contemporary references for virtually nobody, including people much more significant than Jesus. So making an argument about the existence of any ancient figure based on the lack or otherwise of contemporary references is patently ridiculous; doubly so for a peasant preacher.”

Why Arguments From Silence Are Weak

Hannibal's prowess, though perhaps hyperbolic in description, is nevertheless, credible, because of the possibility of his having accomplished those feats. His range of behaviour, corresponds to the range, of above average, human mechanical capability. Hannibal does not jump over mountains. He rides elephants over them. Jesus, on the other hand, transcends human abilities. Having acquired supernatural dimensions, Jesus is able to defy gravity by clambering up vertical walls, like a reptile. It is this latter feature, Jesus' supernatural countenance, which makes him a "mythical" person.

Santa Claus also has aquired supernatural dimensions, i.e., able to fly around the world in one night, climb down chimneys, steer flying reindeers, etc. Does that mean that their is no historical person behind this "mythical" person?

[stephan happy huller]

Exactly

[Leucius Charinus]

Hannibal's existence is attested to by many independent sources. Jesus is attested by no one, save other religious figures, with an axe to grind.

This source agrees that Hannibal had no contemorary

Yet we are told that there are no contemporary eyewitness accounts for Jesus. Indeed, there are none for Alexander the Great. Tim O’Neill at Armarium Magnum gives a comparison with this in using Hannibal. As he says:

“To highlight how easily a peasant nobody like Jesus could very easily pass without any surviving contemporary notice at all, I held up the example of someone at the other end of the scale of fame and significance to Jesus and who, despite this, also has zero contemporary references that have survived to us. Hannibal was about as far from a Jewish peasant preacher in terms of fame and significance as you could get in the ancient world, yet we have no contemporary references to him at all. None.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2 ... david.html

Tim O'Neill attempts to remove Polybius [c.200–c.118 BCE] as a primary source for Hannibal [247–182 BCE] by focussing on the date Polybius wrote his "Histories" and by disregarding the fact that Hannibal died when Polybius was about 18 years old. Tim O'Neil also disregards a mountain of secondary evidence for Hannibal.

Of course, I'd be happy to graciously grant Fitzgerald that a work written 30-60 years after the death of Hannibal is "contemporary" on the proviso he's consistent and therefore rules the synoptic gospels to be "contemporary sources" as well, given they were written 40-60 years after Jesus. But somehow I don't think he's going to do that.

The insurmountable problem with this logic is that we have no reason or evidence "given" that the anonymous, undated and unprovenanced synoptic gospels (or Acts or "Paul") were written in the 1st century other than a great leap of faith. History is not about faith, its about the referential integrity of primary and secondary sources. Such referential integrity suggests strongly that Hannibal existed and caused the Romans all sorts of problems in the Second Punic War, but such referential integrity does not exist for the figure of Jesus. Instead we have a lop-sided mish-mash of very late Christian sources, martialled by the first Christian historian in an even later century, but containing a considerable amount of known forged material, that is being continually disregarded and swept under the carpet by the analysts on both sides.

It appears that not too many people have any idea or appreciation of the critical nature, with respect to history, of the referential integrity of the sources. Referential integrity does not mean "multiple attestation" and it does not mean that forgeries may be ignored. It means that all the evidence must be taken into account and a systematic explanation of all the evidence (including all the forgeries associated with Jesus and Christian origins) be explained in a consistent argument of "best explanation".


Nice OP K.

[Nick Peters]

My thanks to the person who linked to my work at Deeper Waters. Perhaps our mythicist here who made this claim could answer some questions about it.

The insurmountable problem with this logic is that we have no reason or evidence "given" that the anonymous, undated and unprovenanced synoptic gospels (or Acts or "Paul") were written in the 1st century other than a great leap of faith.

Do you have a methodology whereby you determine the date and authorship of an ancient document?

Note for instance that it will not work with authorship also to say "Their name is on it!" No one disputes Tacitus wrote the Annals and his name is on them. People dispute that Paul wrote the Pastorals and his name is on them. One needs a methodology.

Without that, I just have to take your claims on faith.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Nick,

Wikipedia gives us this information about Tacitus:

Details about his personal life are scarce. What little is known comes from scattered hints throughout his work, the letters of his friend and admirer Pliny the Younger, and an inscription found at Mylasa in Caria.

One always has to look at the context and the text and its relationship to history and the natural world.

In the comic book "Captain America #1" (March, 1941), Captain America was shown beating up Adolf Hitler on the cover. Adolf Hitler was a real historical person. We can conclude from the context and text of the comic book, that it is not relating an actual historical event and Adolf Hitler was never beat up by Captain America.

Obviously when Jesus goes to the wilderness and is taken to the top of the world by the Devil, we are not talking about historical events, but fictional ones.

There are only a few points where the gospels come into possible contact with the natural and historical world, and none of the these points are backed up by any ancient historian, but rather much of it is contradicted by Josephus and common sense. It seems absurd to believe that Jesus or anybody else underwent a night trial by Jews, a trial by Pontius Pilate at Sunrise, a trial by Herod, a trial with Barabbas before the Jewish populace, and a whipping and then carried his cross for a mile or more, and all of this before 9 A.M. on Passover, a day where tens of thousands of Jews and God-Fearers would have been visiting Jerusalem to sacrifice at the temple.

Considering the text and context, the God-son of God-Prophet-Magician-Rabbi Jesus is no more real than Captain America and having him put on trial by historical officials does not make him historical. The fact that Captain America interacted with Adolf Hitler in some text or was given his shield by President Roosevelt (Captain America #255) does not allow us to say that he was an historical person or that any of his adventures were historical.

There are of course numerous people who are only mentioned once or twice in ancient history books. The historians may have gotten their names wrong or the incidents they were involved in may have been fictions. However, unless we have specific evidence proving something along these lines, we have no reason to doubt their existence. On the other hand, because Jesus behaves in every single scene in the gospels as a mythological character inside a mythological story behaves, we have every reason to doubt his existence.

My thanks to the person who linked to my work at Deeper Waters. Perhaps our mythicist here who made this claim could answer some questions about it.

The insurmountable problem with this logic is that we have no reason or evidence "given" that the anonymous, undated and unprovenanced synoptic gospels (or Acts or "Paul") were written in the 1st century other than a great leap of faith.

Do you have a methodology whereby you determine the date and authorship of an ancient document?

Note for instance that it will not work with authorship also to say "Their name is on it!" No one disputes Tacitus wrote the Annals and his name is on them. People dispute that Paul wrote the Pastorals and his name is on them. One needs a methodology.

Without that, I just have to take your claims on faith.

[Bernard Muller]

A few things I overlooked in Kapyong's post:

These do seem to argue against a mythical Jesus, but they are, as you say, 'bits and pieces' - unclear and controversial.

I think it is clear enough and the controversy comes from mythicists who cannot accept them because, by definition, these 'bits and pieces' go against their most basic views.
I am talking here about mythicists (Doherty, Carrier, etc ...) who accept Paul as having existed during the same time period as described in 'Acts' (even if some of them reject the whole of 'Acts'!) and when Jerusalem was still existing as a city.
Other mythicists solved the problems caused by these 'bits and pieces' by claiming Paul and his epistles are 2nd century inventions.
Detering is one of those. Long ago, I invited him to read my critique of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. He came back to me, saying, for sure, Paul's epistles feature a very human earthly Jesus (contrary to what Doherty claims). A few months later, Detering came out with his Fabricated Paul: problem solved!

But plenty of religious groups have been started by visions and beliefs too - it didn't NEED Jesus at all, just the BELIEF and a lot of writing.

If it did not need a human earthly Jesus at all, why would they invent him?

ABE: I'll admit that's a reasonably plausible explanation yes

Kapyong, what do you mean by ABE?
What do you think is a reasonably plausible explanation?

Cordially, Bernard

[avi]

Santa Claus also has aquired supernatural dimensions, i.e., able to fly around the world in one night, climb down chimneys, steer flying reindeers, etc. Does that mean that their is no historical person behind this "mythical" person?

Hi arnoldo,

Is there an historical person behind Superman? Is there an historical person behind the Wizard of Oz? What about Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, arnoldo?

Do you imagine that there once had been a genuine Antaeus, with whom Herakles had been obliged to wrestle?

Myth: supernatural attribution.
legend: hyperbole, stretching the imagination, but not supernatural.

It is useless to argue that someone once looked like Clark Kent, therefore, a genuine human, with human DNA, served as a model for the description of Superman. Humans are inventive, but, we do rely upon our prior experiences, in concocting fairy tales. The Jesus myth does not have any connection with actual or fictional, bona fide living humans, any more than does the Antaeus myth.

[avi]

Kapyong, what do you mean by ABE?
What do you think is a reasonably plausible explanation?

Bernard, Kapyong was copying a bit of text from the old forum at BC&H. ABE is/was one of the anonymous posters there.

He was/is a staunch defender of Bart Ehrman.

[arnoldo]

My thanks to the person who linked to my work at Deeper Waters. Perhaps our mythicist here who made this claim could answer some questions about it.

Your welcome.

Obviously when Jesus goes to the wilderness and is taken to the top of the world by the Devil, we are not talking about historical events, but fictional ones

Is it also true that Jesus rising from the dead was about a fictional event? If so, then would you agree with the quote below?

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm

[arnoldo]

Santa Claus also has aquired supernatural dimensions, i.e., able to fly around the world in one night, climb down chimneys, steer flying reindeers, etc. Does that mean that their is no historical person behind this "mythical" person?

Hi arnoldo,

Is there an historical person behind Superman? Is there an historical person behind the Wizard of Oz? What about Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox, arnoldo?
.

No, but I know that these character weren't invented in the 21st century either. .