The Christ Myth Theory

[Politesse]

My question is this: Outside sources that stem either directly or indirectly from the Bible, what evidence is there for Jesus?

"The Bible" did not exist until centuries after Jesus' death. Almost none of the texts under discussion did or could "stem from the Bible" until long after the relevant period of time. Rather, "the Bible" is a concept that gradually (over several centuries) came to stem from a panoply of early sources we now have only partial access to. Paul's letters are not a Biblical source, in other words. Rather, the Bible is a Pauline source if you're thinking of these things clearly.

Really? Are we playing these silly word games now?

If there is a text that was written before the Bible was collected together, but this text was later included in the Bible, feel free to count it from the time it was first written.

I'm not going to say, "Only sources that were written AFTER the entire Bible had been collected together into a single volume will count."

There is no "it"; you're misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the entire Christian corpus, in which context your query makes little sense. There was no Bible to belong to or not belong to when any of the texts we're discussing were being composed. To say that any of these books or sources "stem directly from the Bible" cannot be correct.

It's like asking whether there are any English words that don't come from the dictionary.

 

[Jarhyn]

To answer @Kylie, there are a few historical documents, like two or three, one of them mentions that there was a cult around Jesus and is unimpeached, the one that has been mentioned in this thread.

The other one or two have evidence of historical revisionism and being tainted by religious: they may well be "Lying for Jesus".

The former source is agnostic on the historicity of the man, however; 28 years is a long time for a piece of shitty fiction to get legs, and this fiction is actually pretty decent.

If there is anything else, it is buried somewhere in the Vatican.

 

[Kylie]

My question is this: Outside sources that stem either directly or indirectly from the Bible, what evidence is there for Jesus?

"The Bible" did not exist until centuries after Jesus' death. Almost none of the texts under discussion did or could "stem from the Bible" until long after the relevant period of time. Rather, "the Bible" is a concept that gradually (over several centuries) came to stem from a panoply of early sources we now have only partial access to. Paul's letters are not a Biblical source, in other words. Rather, the Bible is a Pauline source if you're thinking of these things clearly.

Really? Are we playing these silly word games now?

If there is a text that was written before the Bible was collected together, but this text was later included in the Bible, feel free to count it from the time it was first written.

I'm not going to say, "Only sources that were written AFTER the entire Bible had been collected together into a single volume will count."

There is no "it"; you're misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the entire Christian corpus, in which context your query makes little sense. There was no Bible to belong to or not belong to when any of the texts we're discussing were being composed. To say that any of these books or sources "stem directly from the Bible" cannot be correct.

It's like asking whether there are any English words that don't come from the dictionary.

Then let me rephrase my question.

Are there any sources to support the existence of Jesus that do not come from some text that is now included in some variation of the Bible?

And since I think it's quite clear what I'm asking, let's not play games, okay?

 

[Politesse]

My question is this: Outside sources that stem either directly or indirectly from the Bible, what evidence is there for Jesus?

"The Bible" did not exist until centuries after Jesus' death. Almost none of the texts under discussion did or could "stem from the Bible" until long after the relevant period of time. Rather, "the Bible" is a concept that gradually (over several centuries) came to stem from a panoply of early sources we now have only partial access to. Paul's letters are not a Biblical source, in other words. Rather, the Bible is a Pauline source if you're thinking of these things clearly.

Really? Are we playing these silly word games now?

If there is a text that was written before the Bible was collected together, but this text was later included in the Bible, feel free to count it from the time it was first written.

I'm not going to say, "Only sources that were written AFTER the entire Bible had been collected together into a single volume will count."

There is no "it"; you're misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the entire Christian corpus, in which context your query makes little sense. There was no Bible to belong to or not belong to when any of the texts we're discussing were being composed. To say that any of these books or sources "stem directly from the Bible" cannot be correct.

It's like asking whether there are any English words that don't come from the dictionary.

Then let me rephrase my question.

Are there any sources to support the existence of Jesus that do not come from some text that is now included in some variation of the Bible?

And since I think it's quite clear what I'm asking, let's not play games, okay?

I don't see it as "playing games" to point out that your question was incoherent, and thus unaswerable. I do not agree that quoting a source that was later included in the Bible is the same thing as being "from the Bible", if such a book did not exist at the time. If we were talking about Greek mythology rather than Christian, I would likewise object to a question like "Did the Greeks worship any Gods that didn't stem from Bulfinch's Mythology?" You cannot "stem from" that which postdates you.

If you aren't willing to have a specific, clear discussion of ancient texts, there's no point in asking your question at all.

To answer your new question, there is a large and variable early Christian corpus, dozens of books, letters, and iconographic evidence of the early Christian movement, some very well known and others more obscure to non-specialists. Some are disputed. There are also a handful of other early sources by non-Christian sources, all of which have already been discussed in this thread.

 

[Jarhyn]

My question is this: Outside sources that stem either directly or indirectly from the Bible, what evidence is there for Jesus?

"The Bible" did not exist until centuries after Jesus' death. Almost none of the texts under discussion did or could "stem from the Bible" until long after the relevant period of time. Rather, "the Bible" is a concept that gradually (over several centuries) came to stem from a panoply of early sources we now have only partial access to. Paul's letters are not a Biblical source, in other words. Rather, the Bible is a Pauline source if you're thinking of these things clearly.

Really? Are we playing these silly word games now?

If there is a text that was written before the Bible was collected together, but this text was later included in the Bible, feel free to count it from the time it was first written.

I'm not going to say, "Only sources that were written AFTER the entire Bible had been collected together into a single volume will count."

There is no "it"; you're misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the entire Christian corpus, in which context your query makes little sense. There was no Bible to belong to or not belong to when any of the texts we're discussing were being composed. To say that any of these books or sources "stem directly from the Bible" cannot be correct.

It's like asking whether there are any English words that don't come from the dictionary.

Then let me rephrase my question.

Are there any sources to support the existence of Jesus that do not come from some text that is now included in some variation of the Bible?

And since I think it's quite clear what I'm asking, let's not play games, okay?

I don't see it as "playing games" to point out that your question was incoherent, and thus unaswerable. I do not agree that quoting a source that was later included in the Bible is the same thing as being "from the Bible", if such a book did not exist at the time. If we were talking about Greek mythology rather than Christian, I would likewise object to a question like "Did the Greeks worship any Gods that didn't stem from Bulfinch's Mythology?" You cannot "stem from" that which postdates you.

If you aren't willing to have a specific, clear discussion of ancient texts, there's no point in asking your question at all.

To answer your new question, there is a large and variable early Christian corpus, dozens of books, letters, and iconographic evidence of the early Christian movement, some very well known and others more obscure to non-specialists. Some are disputed. There are also a handful of other early sources by non-Christian sources, all of which have already been discussed in this thread.

I would see her question as being "is there any evidence that came from outside the cult of people who obviously thought all this was the truth".

To which the answer is one "Josephus" account that appears to be uncorrupted and authentic, and it only mentions that the cult existed, and does not actually weigh in on the accuracy of their beliefs.

 

[dbz]

Are there any sources to support the existence of Jesus that do not come from some text that is now included in some variation of the Bible?

There is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives.

—Richard Carrier[74]

• Raphael Lataster writes:

Focussing on the non-Christian sources that are available, from within around 100 years after Jesus’ death, Ehrman generally dismisses the few extant non-Christian and non-Jewish testimonies, that of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. [...] Ehrman quickly discards the disputed and irrelevant Talmudic references to Jesus, which he arguably should not have even mentioned [...] Ehrman also adds that “my case for the historicity of Jesus does not depend on the reliability of Josephus’ testimony”. . . . Ehrman has been very bold — though mostly fair — so far. He has effectively ruled out the sources that we objective and secular scholars might place more confidence in...[76]

"Using the Gospels to argue for Jesus’ existence may be circular reasoning. Arguing from external sources would generally result in a much more convincing case."[73]

 

[dbz]

... "Josephus" account that appears to be uncorrupted and authentic, and it only mentions that the cult existed, and does not actually weigh in on the accuracy of their beliefs.

• "Reading Josephus on James: On Valliant Flunking Literary Theory". Richard Carrier Blogs. 24 December 2021.

On the broader point of why we can be certain (if we commit to avoiding fallacies and only making inferences from the actual evidence) that neither reference to Jesus Christ now in the Antiquities of Josephus were there when he published (nor indeed put there until over a century later) see my summary of the latest research in Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014. I have addressed other weird fumbles in applying literary analysis to the James passage in particular in “What Did Josephus Mean by That?” A Case Study in the Relationship between Evidence and Probability (where I show Dennis MacDonald flubbing basic principles to defend a pet theory) and Mason on Josephus on James (where I show Steve Mason lazily deploying self-contradictory reasoning to get results contrary to any sound literary analysis) and, most poignantly, More Asscrankery from Tim O’Neill (some of which asscrankery Valliant repeated, uncredited, in our debate; evidently unaware of my empirical refutations, he allowed himself to be influenced by a notorious liar).

 

[Jarhyn]

... "Josephus" account that appears to be uncorrupted and authentic, and it only mentions that the cult existed, and does not actually weigh in on the accuracy of their beliefs.

If you wish to deliver information to me, do not use videos. I will not click on them.

Can you transcript the valid portions?

At any rate it's been years since the last time I reviewed the contemporary sources (as I have about ZERO interest past distilling the deliverables out), I recall there being three, two of which are fairly obvious forgeries and the remainder being a little questionable but discussing ONLY the existence of the cult and not the accuracy of their beliefs.

Everything else sources out of the cult's own culture and so cannot be accepted as evidence of anything but the fact that the cult had some beliefs described in a book.

 

[dbz]

see linked blog post now on my OP

 

[Jarhyn]

see linked blog post now on my OP

IOW, even that one passage where Josephus mentioned merely that the cult existed at all is still suspect as later revisionism? Do I get the thrust of it right?

 

[dbz]

Carrier, Richard (2012). "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 20 (4): 489–514. doi:10.1353/earl.2012.0029.

[T]he reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians.

 

[Jarhyn]

Carrier, Richard (2012). "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 20 (4): 489–514. doi:10.1353/earl.2012.0029.

[T]he reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians.

So, what you're saying is "there are exactly zero non-cult sources that may be treated as original." Is this the case?

 

[Politesse]

This just in - Julius Caesar never existed.

(Only Romans wrote about him, and they're biased).

 

[dbz]

This just in - Julius Caesar never existed.

(Only Romans wrote about him, and they're biased).

• Rather there are major issues of reliability per standard historical methodologies.

The generally unreliable, untrustworthy, and fiction-filled Gospels can occasionally be considered excellent sources of objective and accurate historical information because of their foundational written sources, which do not exist, which contained many fictions if they did, and which cannot now be scrutinised for authorship, age, genre, intent, and so forth. These hypothetical written sources are themselves based on oral traditions, that also cannot be scrutinised, that changed over time, and that may well have been made up whole cloth. Therefore we have conclusive proof that Jesus definitely existed.

—Raphael Lataster describing Bart Ehrman's approach to the Gospels.[19]

As with most religious texts, scholars assume some basic level of reliability on topics like "Who were the players?", "What were the major events?" and "What was the attitude of the community the texts intend to represent?"[20] However there are major issues of reliability per standard historical methodologies. Richard Carrier writes,[21]

[W]e discount the Gospels as at all reliable on standard historical methodologies that would produce the same result in every other field:

• They’re late, post-dating any evident witness known to still be alive;
• and written in a foreign land and language;
• by unknown authors of unknown credentials;
• who cite no sources, and give no indication they had any sources;
• and never critically engage with their material but only credulously (e.g. they never discuss conflicting accounts or reasons to believe their information, unlike rational historians of the era);
• and about whose texts we have no reactions, critical or otherwise—whatever people were saying about these Gospels when they came out, we never get to hear, not for many more decades, by which time we see those reacting have no other information to judge them by;
• all the earliest of which texts just copy their predecessors verbatim and change and add a few things;
• and which contain in every pericope patent implausibilities or wholly unbelievable stories (from a random guy splitting the heavens and battling the devil and wandering out of the desert and converting disciples to instantly abandon their livelihoods after but a few sentences, to mystically murdering thousands of pigs, miraculously feeding thousands of itinerants, curing the blind, calming storms, and walking on water; from having a guy arguing against Pharisees with arguments that actually were the arguments of the Pharisees, to depicting a trial and execution that violates every law and custom of the time; and beyond);
• which stories have obvious and rather convenient pedagogical uses in later missionary work;
• and often emulate and “change up” the prior myths of other historically dubious heroes, like Moses and Elijah;
• and often contain details that can only have been written a lifetime later (like the Sermon on the Mount, which was composed in Greek after the Jewish War; or prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction, likewise; or Mark’s emulation of the passion of Jesus ben Ananias or Luke’s confused cooption of The Antiquities of Josephus; and so on).
• and for none which do we have any prior corroboration.

There is no field of history—absolutely none—where such sources as these would be trusted as history at all.

The Gospels are so literarily crafted (OHJ, Ch. 10), and so reactive to each other (e.g. in their baptism, empty tomb, nativity stories and beyond) that there is not any evidence left for a tradition even existing. Mark is inventing tradition by reifying Paul … Matthew is inventing tradition to respond to Mark and recent history (e.g. it’s now the mainstream view that the Sermon on the Mount was a post-War fabrication of a Hellenized Jew: OHJ, index). Luke is inventing tradition to fix them; and John, to fix Luke (e.g. John fabricates the entire Lazarus tradition to refute Luke’s parable of Lazarus: OHJ, Ch. 10.7). The evidence actually indicates this is all being created. The Gospels are not random collections of lore; they are deliberate and coherent constructs, top to bottom.[22]

 

[dbz]

So, what you're saying is "there are exactly zero non-cult sources that may be treated as original." Is this the case?

In short yes. There is no "demonstrably independent" evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament.

• Voorst, Robert Van (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 69, n. 120. ISBN 978-0-8028-4368-5. "Those who, over the last two hundred years, have doubted the existence of Jesus have argued that the lack of contemporary corroboration of Jesus by classical authors is a main indication that he did not exist. (See, e.g., The Existence of Christ Disproved (London: Heatherington, 1841) 214. More recently, see Michael Martin, The Evidence against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1991).)" & "A penultimate conclusion relates to those who still argue that Jesus never existed. Since the classical writers contain no certainly independent witnesses to Jesus, by the strictest standards of historical evidence we cannot use them to demonstrate the existence of Jesus. " --(p. 73)
  
• Charles Guignebert (1933). Jésus. L’Évolution de l’humanité. synthèse collective 29. Paris: La Renaissance du Livre. p. 23. "Confessons donc que tous les prétendus témoignages païens et juifs ne nous apportent aucun renseignement utile sur la vie de Jésus, qu’ils ne nous donnent même pas la certitude qu’il ait vécu."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We may take any fictional literary character and ask whether said character is historical. One of my favorites is Rhett Butler. By all accounts Rhett seems to have been based on an actual person. And of course this makes sense because this is precisely how writers compost their works. They use their actual life experiences to create their art. The problem is how one defines the word "historical." Clearly Rhett Butler is not historical but George Alfred Trenholm certainly is. For some people making arguments for historicity the claim will be made that there is an historical Rhett Butler because the fictional character is based on Trenholm even though the author Margaret Mitchell denies vehemently that such is the case. And this can be done for any character in any fictional work.

So where does that leave any discussions of hitoricity when it comes to obviously fictional characters? It's all up to the reader in the end unless the known author is clearly on record, which is rarely if ever the case. And even then the claims can be disputed.

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler. What does on mean by "historical" when it comes to these discussions? The godpel protagonist may have been inspired by an actual historical person. Is that what historicity means? If so there are lots of historical fictional characters, possible all that have ever been penned.

 

[Politesse]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler.

Actually, that's an incredibly common hypothesis concerning the Jesus materials.

 

[ramoss]

My question is this: Outside sources that stem either directly or indirectly from the Bible, what evidence is there for Jesus?

"The Bible" did not exist until centuries after Jesus' death. Almost none of the texts under discussion did or could "stem from the Bible" until long after the relevant period of time. Rather, "the Bible" is a concept that gradually (over several centuries) came to stem from a panoply of early sources we now have only partial access to. Paul's letters are not a Biblical source, in other words. Rather, the Bible is a Pauline source if you're thinking of these things clearly.

Really? Are we playing these silly word games now?

If there is a text that was written before the Bible was collected together, but this text was later included in the Bible, feel free to count it from the time it was first written.

I'm not going to say, "Only sources that were written AFTER the entire Bible had been collected together into a single volume will count."

There is no "it"; you're misunderstanding something quite fundamental about the entire Christian corpus, in which context your query makes little sense. There was no Bible to belong to or not belong to when any of the texts we're discussing were being composed. To say that any of these books or sources "stem directly from the Bible" cannot be correct.

It's like asking whether there are any English words that don't come from the dictionary.

Then let me rephrase my question.

Are there any sources to support the existence of Jesus that do not come from some text that is now included in some variation of the Bible?

And since I think it's quite clear what I'm asking, let's not play games, okay?

I don't see it as "playing games" to point out that your question was incoherent, and thus unaswerable. I do not agree that quoting a source that was later included in the Bible is the same thing as being "from the Bible", if such a book did not exist at the time. If we were talking about Greek mythology rather than Christian, I would likewise object to a question like "Did the Greeks worship any Gods that didn't stem from Bulfinch's Mythology?" You cannot "stem from" that which postdates you.

If you aren't willing to have a specific, clear discussion of ancient texts, there's no point in asking your question at all.

To answer your new question, there is a large and variable early Christian corpus, dozens of books, letters, and iconographic evidence of the early Christian movement, some very well known and others more obscure to non-specialists. Some are disputed. There are also a handful of other early sources by non-Christian sources, all of which have already been discussed in this thread.

I would see her question as being "is there any evidence that came from outside the cult of people who obviously thought all this was the truth".

To which the answer is one "Josephus" account that appears to be uncorrupted and authentic, and it only mentions that the cult existed, and does not actually weigh in on the accuracy of their beliefs.

I disagree. Both Josephus accounts are corrupted.

 

[dbz]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional...

• The character of Jesus in the gospels is Second-god (Christ).

1904: Albert Kalthoff

(1850–1906) – German Protestant theologian

A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not.[78]

1906: Albert Schweitzer

(1875–1965) – German critical scholar who wrote a history of the research on the "Life of Jesus" [Leben-Jesu-Forschung]

That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth … Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. [79]

1909: John Eleazer Remsburg

(1848–1919) – American freethinker and writer

[T]he Christ is understood [as] the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth.[80]

1997: Robert M. Price

In the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth.[81]

2021: John W. Loftus

The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now.[11]

The character of Jesus in the gospels ... is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.

—John W. Loftus [29]

Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus … he should never be considered its foundation.

—Albert Schweitzer [26][27]

The historical Jesus would in actual fact have been named Yeshu or Yeshua, as Jesus was the Latinised version of the name, which a historical Jesus wouldn’t have used. Referring to the historical personage Jesus bar Joseph/Pantera by the moniker Yesus is verily apropos.

Bart Ehrman holds the viewpoint that Yesus was a Jewish preacher—and teacher[28]—crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate. Who was born into poverty and was either a carpenter or a carpenter’s son. He began his public ministry while trapped in a poverty-stricken lower-class life. Early in his ministry he was baptized by John the Baptist. He earned the enmity of the Pharisees by causing a disturbance in the Temple, but not at the scale depicted by the Gospels. After a brief trial, Pilate personally ordered his crucifixion at the beginning of Pesach,

the holiest of Jewish holidays. Roman soldiers flogged Yesus on his way to the Cross, and he was dead within six hours, "The End" (or is it?).

One question is, if there was a real man who inspired the biblical Jesus but whose real life and character are very far from the popular myth, do we say Yesus was Jesus? If his name was Matthew and he was a drunken brawler and frequent patron of brothels, is he close enough to count? Or what if he was an itinerant preacher but didn't do or say hardly any of the things attributed to him in the gospels? Depending on where you land on this question, noting that myths tend to be inspired by a real story doesn't mean that Jesus or Yesus existed.

Per the gospels, Historicists assert that these literary narratives featuring god-Jesus contain biographical data for Yesus that can be extracted. Whereas Biblicists maintain that the gospels are fictional narrative literature and do not support a historical Yesus, but they do assert some sort of historical Yesus probably existed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler.

Actually, that's an incredibly common hypothesis concerning the Jesus materials.

Your definition of historicity re gospels is different from everyone's but everyone uses the same words: historical. In past discussions people have told me it was a person baptized by JTB and killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews. That probably narrows the field down to thousands. But there are other definitions, all taken together probably narrow the field down to a few tens of thousands of persons, maybe more.

The fact is that everything is historical to a degree so no argument. Rudolph is based on a reindeer. Bunyan is based on a lumberjack. These are real historical things.