Did Jesus Really Exist?

The
Jesus Mythicist Position

By Rook Hawkins

 

 

(1) A Brief Introduction to the Revised Article

 

About a year and a half ago, I started a campaign to educate people about Jesus mythicism.  When I had first started working on the campaign I was not as well prepared as I am now.  I have to chalk that up to inexperience.  When somebody says “a lot
can happen in a year”, I will consider what they have to say, because they
aren’t kidding.  A lot has happened in a
year and a half that I felt a revision of this article was a necessity. 

Among the new avenues I have taken is a complete refocusing
of my book, a project that has been a very huge learning experience, and I owe
a large debt of gratitude to my mentor, colleague and friend, Thomas L.
Thompson, who has been in no small way an influence on me personally and my
research.  Richard Carrier and Robert M.
Price have also stepped in to give me some really important advice and
critiques that have also shaped how I see the past.  My debtors also include Joseph B. Tyson, who
has offered some criticisms as well as kindness and friendship, and to
minimalists everywhere who have said in a loud voice, “We will not submit to
assumption and speculation.”  It is their
mighty tombs and impressively large shadows that I walk behind.  Without their unending sacrifice to keep
scholarship in check, the world would still be shrouded in an age of darkness
and death that ended with the success of the redaction schools of Germany
and the glorious Enlightenment that help shaped western culture.

Additionally, over the past year, I have written a number of
articles that supersede many of my older ones. 
Many of my older positions imitated Dennis McKinsey, who is still a
friend and colleague I admire greatly, yet where he was the one to show me the
contradictions of the Bible, I was never able to explain to him the reasons why
they existed.  For a long period of my
atheism, I have argued with the intent to expose these contradictions.  There are many.  But this has become dull and boring to
me.  Sure, it is very easy to show
somebody a contradiction, but it is so much more fascinating to explain why
they exist.  In other words, the what isn’t as important as the why. 
My interest has shifted, and so have some of my positions.

To make this perfectly clear, it is not dishonorable to
revise an outdated position.  Revising
older material is exactly the intent of science.  As a historian, it is my job to review old
data (especially my own!), compare it to new evidence, and adjust
accordingly.  It has been a great deal of
fun, as well as effort, to bring you this updated article.  I have been longing to write it for a few
months, but I knew there were other things that had to come first.  I had to write up several articles that would
supplement this one before I could even start conceptualizing an outline.  There were many loose ends that I needed to
tie up and I feel I have done a good job of doing just that.

I have decided to write this article as if it were an
FAQ.  I have divided this into questions,
and to the questions I will provide very basic answers.  This article is intended as a general outline
of my position, which I have come to understand as the most honest among other
mythicists.  I will link to additional
articles I’ve written if somebody wants further reading.  I am open to criticisms and comments,
provided that before you comment you read the additional material to see if
your positions have already been answered. 
I am not a fan of repeating myself, especially not when I spent hours
writing so I wouldn’t have to repeat myself. 
If I feel your question has been answered elsewhere, I will simply link
you to the thread where the answer is located. 
I will not do your homework for you (Although, one could say that I have
already done quite a bit of it for you already)!

I sincerely hope that you join me in this campaign, and together
we can make it a success.  With enough
support, we can educate a great deal of people. 
And really, isn’t that what being a Rational Responder is all about?       

 

(2) What is the Mythicist Position?

 

To be brief, the mythicist position holds that Jesus, the
historical and supernatural, never existed. 

 

For more reading: Does
it Matter if Jesus Existed?  A Response
to Rick Hillegas

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Did
Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument for Ahistoricity (Richard
Carrier: 2002)

(Off site) For more
reading: Jesus:
Fact or Fiction (Robert M. Price: 1997)

(Off site) For more
reading: Christ
a Fiction (Robert M. Price: 1997)

(Off site) For more
reading: Creating
Biblical Figures (Thomas L. Thompson: 2005)

 

(3) What about the Historical Jesus Quests?

 

The historical Jesus quests (there have actually been
three!) have all failed to provide a historical Jesus.  What they have shown is how easy it is for
scholars to look down the well of history and see their own reflections staring
back at them—and then assuming that reflection is Jesus.  Each quest set out with the goal of
demythologizing the Gospels; that is, they intended to remove all the
supernatural, legendary, theological, and political embellishments added by the
authors of the four Gospels. (Later quests attempted to remove them from
deuterocanonical books as well!)  What
was discovered is that it is impossible to do so without infecting your search
with your own personal goals as a scholar. 

 

For more reading: Which
Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder?

 

(4) What about Paul? 
Didn’t he believe in a Historical Jesus?

 

Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus, but instead believed in a
spiritual Jesus which he considered to be both a mediator between God
and man as well as a revealer of knowledge and the mysteries of God.  Paul is the only link between the time period that is generally thought of to be the lifetime of Christ (c. 5-3 BCE – 30-33 CE), yet Paul seems to know nothing at all about this historical man, Jesus, who would have only died a few decades earlier.  Paul
even says that he has talked to some of the apostles, but not only does
he still remain ignorant, he flat out disagrees with Peter on doctrine
and the message of Christianity!  You would think that, as
somebody converting into a religion like Christianity, Paul would grant
authority to the people who supposedly knew Jesus.  But he doesn’t.  Paul was interpreting scripture, and his savior came from scripture—not from a historical person. 

 

For more reading: On Paul and Identity

 

(5) What are the Gospels?  Aren’t they biographies of Jesus’ life?

 

The Gospels tell us nothing of a historical Jesus.  They are not biographies at all, unless you
redefine biography to mean “a fictional representation of a legend”.  (Or something very close to that)  The Gospels are exactly what their authors
intended them to be.  Mark intended his
Gospel to be read as edifying fiction, as scripture reinterpretation, much like
that of the author of Job and the author of Tobit did.  Matthew, writing later and copying Mark, added
new plot lines to his narrative, like a birth story and a short snippet of
Jesus as a youth – both of which come from scripture.  But even Matthew was probably writing
allegory and fiction.  Luke was writing a
polemical Gospel against Marcion, probably around the beginning or middle of
the second century.  Luke changed
Matthews birth narrative, and added more extravagance to Jesus’ resurrection
story, including a scene which imitates the story of Romulus
from Roman fiction.  John, most
definitely a Gnostic, wrote his Gospel after Luke or around Luke, and expanded
dramatically on Mark’s original composition. 
None of these stories are accounts of an actual person.  They are Jewish fiction writing, a genre that
was very popular during the Hellenistic period and the period known as the
Second Sophistic.   The Gospels are a
product of their times, they are not—as is commonly thought—separate from them.

 

For more reading: What is a Gospel?

For more reading: Biblical
Languages and Dating

For more reading: An
Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity

For more reading: Jewish
Assimilation into Greek Culture

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Review
of “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” (Richard Carrier: 2000)

(Off site) For more
reading: Creating
Biblical Figures (Thomas L. Thompson: 2005)

 

(6) What about Josephus?

 

Josephus’ testimony, commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum, is most certainly
a later Christian forgery.  Many scholars
argue for a partial interpolation, but this is probably out of the knowledge
that without Josephus there is no evidence for a historical Jesus within the
first century—a fact that would damage the credibility of the historical Jesus
more than it already is.  They do so based
on the assumption that an Arabic version reflects a more reasonable
understanding of Jesus, without all the supernatural and obvious Christian
elements.  But they ignore the fact that
the copy is late and written by Arabs who did not view Jesus as the messiah.  They also ignore, or perhaps are unaware, of
the Slavic copies of Josephus with even more interpolations added by
Christians, many appearing in Josephus’ Jewish
Wars.  This is not only evidence of
Christian tampering with manuscripts, and the desire to incorporate whole
accounts of Jesus’ life into Josephus, but it also severely damages the
credibility of the Testimonium as
even a partial interpolation.  Even
worse, it exposes how easily scholars can be influenced by personal emotion and
agendas, which cloud their research and affect their conclusions.

 

For more reading: Josephus
and the Testimonium: Is it Evidence of Jesus?

 

(Off site) For more reading: Josephus Unbound: Reopening
the Josephus Question (Earl Doherty: 1998)

 

(7) Do you believe that Jesus was a composite of Pagan
Gods?

 

Short answer: Yes and no. 
Longer answer:  Jesus is a
composite of many different elements, and it honestly depends on which Jesus
you’re talking about in order to really make this distinction.  If we are looking at Paul’s Jesus, then his
savior is a combination of Orphic, Essenic and Rabbincal traditions, reflecting
some themes from each.  If we read Mark’s
Gospel alone, Jesus is a composite of five elements: (1) Moses (2) Josephus (3)
Homer’s epics (specifically Odysseus) (4) the Hebrew scriptures (mainly the
prophets) (5) and Orpheus.  Matthew’s
Jesus is decidedly more Jewish, although Orphic themes show through because
Matthew, like Mark, is interpreting Paul’s letters which contain these
themes.  Luke’s Jesus is both
anti-Marcionite but pro-Pauline.  John’s
Gospel is a specific type of Gnosticism, which has its roots in Jewish and
Greek mystery cults.  They mostly reflect
Orphic and Dionysian traditions, and thus reflect Orpheus and Dionysus. 

 

The claim that Jesus is a compilation of other Egyptian and
Eastern demi-Gods is not founded in any fact. 
Jesus reflects Egyptian culture because of the Diasporic influence of
Egyptian culture on exiled Jews living in Egypt.  The Hebrew Scriptures, more than Jesus,
reflect more Egyptian influence than anything else.  And because the Gospel authors are
interpreting scripture, the influence comes through.  But there is no direct influence from Horus
or Osirius, and there is certainly no evidence at all of eastern traditions
like Krishna or Buddha having an influence on the
authors of the Gospels—or even Jews in general. 
This is outdated scholarship that lacks serious evidence required to
make such assumptions.  I do not support
it.  The only pagan God that has any
direct effect on Christianity is Orpheus, and in some cases Dionysus.  And the evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

For more reading: Problems
with Acharya S: A Brief Review

For more reading: Jewish
Assimilation into Greek Culture

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Kersey
Graves and “The Worlds Sixteen Crucified Saviors” (Richard Carrier: 2003)

(Off site) For more
reading: Osiris and
Pagan Resurrection Myths: Assessing the Till-McFall Exchange (Richard
Carrier: 2002)

 

(8) If Jesus was not a real person, why were
Christians willing to die for him?

 

This assumes that early Christians thought of him as a
historical person.  The Roman Legions
died for the gods of their emperor, and they never thought of the gods as
historical.  Their gods were
supernatural, spiritual beings.  Perhaps
later Christians died believing Jesus was a historical person, but that doesn’t
mean he was.  Nobody would argue that
Dionysus was a historical person on the account that Greeks believed he was.

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Was Christianity Too
Improbable to be False? Chapter
8: Who Would Want to be Persecuted? (Richard Carrier: 2006)

 

(9) Don’t Christians, Muslims and Jews all accept
Jesus as Historical?  Doesn’t that mean he
lived?

 

No.  It means people
are willing to accept things as fact with little or no evidence.

 

For more reading: A
Look at Ancient Ghost Stories and Hauntings

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Kooks
and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into a World of the Gospels (Richard
Carrier: 1997)

 

 

(10) If Jesus didn’t exist, why are there so many
television shows on the History Channel about his life?

 

There are shows on Jesus because the story of Jesus, and the
controversies of many of the apocryphal books on Jesus, make for great
television drama and boost ratings.  

 

(11) What Motive would the early Christians have to
lie about Jesus?

 

Who claimed they lied? 
This is an ad hoc
argument.  The early Christians believed
differently about Jesus than did their later Orthodox brethren.  The early Christian believed in a spiritual
revealer Jesus, not a historical man that was crucified by other men.  They believed this with all their will, and
the Gospel author Mark probably did as well. 
Mark was not writing fiction to deceive, as other Christians read his
fictional account and understood it to be fiction, just as Jews read Tobit and
understood it to be fiction.  And, just
as you go out to a book store today and pick up a copy of The Catcher in the Rye and read it as fiction.  Jesus Christ is no more real than Holden
Caulfield.  The early Christians
understood this and appreciated the narrative as a tool of wisdom and
inventiveness. 

 

For more reading: What is a Gospel?

For more reading: Biblical
Languages and Dating

For more reading: An
Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Creating
Biblical Figures (Thomas L. Thompson: 2005)

 

(12) What about all the Gnostic gospels found at Nag
Hammadi, don’t they validate the historical Jesus?

 

No, they do not.  Just
as the synoptic Gospels show a gradual legendary embellishment, the Gnostic
Gospels also do this.  The authors of the
various apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Apocalypses are copying and editing
earlier works, applying their own politics and theology to them as they
write.  This is indicative more of legend
than of history.

 

(13) Are the Gospels eye-witness accounts?

 

No.  The Gospels show
clear signs of being written by authors after the fall of the Temple
in Jerusalem.  Some even show signs of having never been to Palestine
at all, and are relying on atlases or maps to formulate plotline.  Some purposefully change or create locations
(such as gentile villages in Galilee in the first
century) to supplement their fictional narratives.  Matthew and Luke copy (in many cases
verbatim) from Mark’s Gospel extensively, and Luke we know for sure had copies
of Josephus and wrote against Marcion in the second century.  John has a copy of Mark, but alters his
Gospel quite a bit, adding to it extravagantly. 
The Gospel authors are also anonymous, the names being given long after
their original composition by later Christians vying for power over other
Christians who they deemed heretical.  

 

For more reading: What is a Gospel?

For more reading: Biblical
Languages and Dating

For more reading: An
Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity

 

(Off site) For more
reading: The
Evidence is Inadequate (Richard Carrier: 2006)

(Off site) For more
reading: The
Formation of the New Testament Canon (Richard Carrier: 2000)

(Off site) For more
reading: Luke
and Josephus (Richard Carrier: 2000)

 

(14) Don’t we have artifacts of Jesus’ life like the
Spear of Destiny and the Shroud of Turin?

 

Both these objects have long since been considered
hoaxes.  We have no archaeological
evidence for the existence of Jesus at all.

 

(15) Didn’t Jesus fulfill Prophecy?

 

No.  In fact the
reason why Jesus is rejected by Jews today is because Jesus did not fit the
prophecies of the Old Testament.  The
reason why Jesus’ actions in the Gospels resemble things from the Old Testament
is not because Jesus fulfilled scripture, but rather the author of the Gospels
was reinterpreting that scripture to create plot lines.  Jesus did not ride a colt into Jerusalem.  The Author of Mark was reading the verse from
Zechariah, and for the purpose of plot,
had his character ride a colt into Jerusalem.

 

For more reading: What is a Gospel?

For more reading: Biblical
Languages and Dating

For more reading: An
Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity

 

(Off site) For more
reading: The
Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Richard Carrier: 2003)

 

(16) What about the accounts of Jesus traveling to the
far East to study the philosophy of Buddhism?

 

None of this has been verified by any archaeological
evidence.  This is another attempt to
market on the Jesus namesake.  There is
no evidence of Jewish settlements in India
or China, and
certainly there is no evidence that Jews could understand and read, or even
speak ancient Hindi or Chinese.  These
positions are generally claimed by spiritualists and new age folk who want to
make Jesus more like Buddha and Krishna.  No such link exists archaeologically or
historically.  This claim rests purely on
desire and nothing more.

 

For more reading: Problems
with Acharya S: A Brief Review

For more reading: Jewish
Assimilation into Greek Culture

 

(17) An Argument from Silence does not mean Jesus
didn’t exist.

 

Correct.  However this
assumes that an Argument from Silence is all that mythicists have.  Instead we have a strong Argument from Silence
along with other evidence that goes against historicity, cumulatively makes a
strong case for ahistoricity.  A review
of all the articles linked to on this page will clearly show how strong the
position is for ahistoricity.

 

(Off site) For more
reading: Was
Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (Richard Carrier: 2006)

(Off site) For more reading:
Did
Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument for Ahistoricity (Richard
Carrier: 2002)

 

(18) What about other attestations to Jesus like the
Talmud?

 

These references are not only late, but they are
conflicting, and are probably based on hearsay (in other words, they got their
stories from Christians not historical data). 
The Talmud contains some Toldoth
Jesu, or Jewish polemics against Christians, which are fictional, and are
all very degrading towards the character of Jesus.   

 

(Off site) For more
reading: The
Great Preposterous (Robert M. Price: 1997)

 

 

(19) Books by Mythicist Scholars

Thomas L. Thompson

(1)  
The
Mythic Past (2000)

(2)  
Early
History of the Israelite People (2000)

(3)  
The
Messiah Myth (2005)

 

Robert M. Price

(1)  
Jesus
is Dead (2006)

(2)  
Incredible
Shrinking Son of Man (2003)

(3)  
Deconstructing
Jesus (2000)

(4)  
The
Empty Tomb (2005)

 

Richard Carrier

(1)  
Sense
and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (2005)