The Christ Myth Theory

[Swammerdami]

I try to keep an open mind, so when I saw a 10-day old YouTube about Richard Carrier's latest proof that Jesus was not historic, I clicked and watched skimmed. I'll summarize it because I found it hilarious.

Briefly, the whole point of the YouTube was
Jesus is not historic because

• there is more evidence for Spartacus's existence than for Jesus's, and
• there is more evidence for Alexander the Great's existence than for Jesus's, and
• there is more evidence for Nero's existence (and that of other historic Emperors of Rome) than for Jesus's, and
• there is more evidence for Caiaphas's existence than for Jesus's.

Is this not hilarious? There is more evidence for Nero's existence than for Jesus's? Is Carrier sure about that?
Am I insulting the reader by feeling the need to point out that the last question is sarcastic?

Caiaphas was one of the 2 or 3 most important persons in Judaea in 30 AD. Carrier daren't mention Pontius Pilate, arguably first in importance, since most of the historic references to Pilate are in connection with his sentencing of Jesus!

So let's compare Spartacus and Jesus.

Spartacus

Spartacus's forces were able to defeat several Roman military units and swell their ranks to an estimated 70,000 enslaved people and others [120,000 people when women and children are included]. Spartacus proved himself a capable tactician despite the dearth of formal military training among his followers....
The philosopher Voltaire described the Third Servile War as "the only just war in history"

He led Seventy Thousand men. They terrorized Southern Italy for 3 years. Was he a significant historic figure?
Yet despite this significance ...

Although Spartacus is a significant figure in Roman history, no contemporary sources exist, and all accounts are written significantly later, by persons not directly involved, and without perspectives of slaves or eyewitnesses. Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and the extant accounts are contradictory.

Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus was one of several would-be "Messiahs" roaming about in Judea -- or, as in Jesus' case, just roaming the backwater province of Galilee. The one incident that most caught authorities' eye was his demonstration in the Court of the Gentiles near Jerusalem's Temple. That's right, he didn't even demonstrate in an inner courtyard: The Court of Gentiles is the outermost.

Records are unclear, but Jesus may have staged this protest alone with his Army of 12 just looking on. That's Twelve with a T, noticeably fewer than 70,000, if my arithmetic is correct. Though not as well known in his day as Spartacus, he was written up in about 30 books (or preserved letters) during the ten decades after his death.

Yet Carrier is proud to assert that Spartacus, finally brought down by several of Rome's best legions and praised many centuries later by Voltaire, has more historic evidence than Jesus!

Please raise your hand if you understand why this is hilarious.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Do you deny that the rebel slave army existed?
If you admit that the slave army existed do you also admit that it must have had a leader?
If so, then the only question is about the name of this leader, not about his existence.
With Jesus that wasn't even his name. There is no evidence outside of the Bible for his existence (Josephus is not relevant).
Many itinerant preachers existed at time that Jesus is claimed to have lived, there may even have been one or more called Yeshua, but that doesn't mean that they are the same person as the one that later was named Jesus.
Jesus was either totally fictional or a very mythologized real person.

Spartacus was probably the actual name of the rebel leader, and even if not, the history is not, or minimally, mythologized (if any aspect was, it was probably less so than the history of US military in WWII). The historians whose surviving works mention Spartacus are a much more reliable source than any claimed for Jesus.

 

[Politesse]

The historians whose surviving works mention Spartacus are a much more reliable source than any claimed for Jesus.

How so?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like Tom Holland's theory. He fleshes it out more in his book Dominion.

1. The “crucified messiah” problem (aka: no one would make this up).

Holland’s favorite point.
In the 1st-century Roman world, crucifixion was:
reserved for rebels, slaves, and traitors
deliberately humiliating
designed to erase honour

A crucified Jewish messiah is basically a theological faceplant.
If early Christians were inventing a founder, they picked the worst possible option.

You don’t invent a god who:
gets arrested
tortured
executed naked

by imperial authorities

That only makes sense if something like that actually happened, and the followers were stuck explaining it afterward.

2. Early, hostile sources mention Jesus anyway

Holland emphasizes that Jesus appears in sources written by people who disliked Christians—which is historical gold.

Key examples:
Tacitus (Roman historian, c. 116 CE)
Mentions Christus, executed under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign.
Tacitus despised Christians and had zero incentive to help them.

Josephus (Jewish historian, late 1st century)
Mentions Jesus as a real person who was executed.
Yes, parts are later edited by Christians—but Holland stresses that most scholars agree there’s a solid historical core.

People don’t invent your hero inside your enemies’ histories.

3. Paul’s letters are too early to be myth-making
Paul’s letters are written roughly 20–30 years after Jesus’ death.
That’s nothing in ancient history terms.
Paul:
personally knows Jesus’ brother James
knows Peter
treats Jesus as a recent, executed human being
This is not the timeline where myths about purely fictional gods normally crystallize. Too many living witnesses. Too many people who could say, “That didn’t happen.”

4. The movement explodes for the wrong reasons

Holland points out something awkward:

Early Christianity offered:
persecution
no political power
no wealth
no military backing
social stigma
Yet it spreads anyway.

Movements built on pure invention usually collapse once the costs show up. Christianity didn’t—it grew faster because its founder had been publicly killed. That only works if people believed the core event was real.

5. Jesus fits perfectly into his historical context
Holland stresses that Jesus:
fits Jewish apocalyptic expectations of the time
behaves like other known 1st-century Jewish preachers
clashes with Roman authority in very predictable ways
He’s not an anachronism or a cosmic abstraction. He looks exactly like the kind of person Roman governors routinely executed.

6. Mythicists explain less, not more
Holland is blunt about this.
The “Jesus never existed” theory requires:
a massive, coordinated invention
across hostile Jewish and Roman cultures
accepted almost immediately
leaving multiple independent references
with zero contemporary denial saying “this man never lived”
That’s not skepticism. That’s gymnastics.
Holland’s bottom line (very him)

You don’t need to believe:
Jesus was divine
miracles happened
the resurrection is historical
The description of Jesus is accurate

But denying Jesus’ existence requires more faith than accepting it.
Or, in Holland’s style:
Christianity makes no sense unless its founder was a real, humiliatingly executed man—because no one would design a god like that on purpose.

 

[Swammerdami]

The historians whose surviving works mention Spartacus are a much more reliable source than any claimed for Jesus.

How so?

I think this is derived via the infamous reasoning method called petitio principii.

Briefly,

Sources asserting Jesus' existence are unreliable because Jesus was fictional.​

And in particular,

The texts of Josephus and Tacitus -- early non-Christian sources asserting Jesus' existence -- must have been tampered with because Jesus was fictional.​

Q.E.D.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It should also be mentioned that Tom Holland is not a Christian. He's very much an atheist. What he is, is a world renowned historian of the ancient world. He's one of the best qualified ever to talk about the general context in which Jesus was (allegedly) born. He can read all the source text in their orignal languages. So while he's not a religious scholar. He can talk about the other stuff, the stuff that matters more imho.

I can also recommend his book on Muhammed. In the Shadow of the Sword.

And Tom Holland agrees with Bart Ehrman that the only thing likely historically correct about the Jesus narrative was that a man called Jesus created the Jesus movement and later got executed. The rest of the story of his life is probably mythic and not true. Both of them think it's unlikely that Jesus was a tecton (carpenter/day labourer). Both of them think that it's more than likely that the Jesus character may well be several people conflated.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I like Tom Holland's theory. He fleshes it out more in his book Dominion.

1. The “crucified messiah” problem (aka: no one would make this up).

Holland’s favorite point.
In the 1st-century Roman world, crucifixion was:
reserved for rebels, slaves, and traitors
deliberately humiliating
designed to erase honour

A crucified Jewish messiah is basically a theological faceplant.
If early Christians were inventing a founder, they picked the worst possible option.

You don’t invent a god who:
gets arrested
tortured
executed naked

by imperial authorities

That only makes sense if something like that actually happened, and the followers were stuck explaining it afterward.

2. Early, hostile sources mention Jesus anyway

Holland emphasizes that Jesus appears in sources written by people who disliked Christians—which is historical gold.

Key examples:
Tacitus (Roman historian, c. 116 CE)
Mentions Christus, executed under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign.
Tacitus despised Christians and had zero incentive to help them.

Josephus (Jewish historian, late 1st century)
Mentions Jesus as a real person who was executed.
Yes, parts are later edited by Christians—but Holland stresses that most scholars agree there’s a solid historical core.

People don’t invent your hero inside your enemies’ histories.

3. Paul’s letters are too early to be myth-making
Paul’s letters are written roughly 20–30 years after Jesus’ death.
That’s nothing in ancient history terms.
Paul:
personally knows Jesus’ brother James
knows Peter
treats Jesus as a recent, executed human being
This is not the timeline where myths about purely fictional gods normally crystallize. Too many living witnesses. Too many people who could say, “That didn’t happen.”

4. The movement explodes for the wrong reasons

Holland points out something awkward:

Early Christianity offered:
persecution
no political power
no wealth
no military backing
social stigma
Yet it spreads anyway.

Movements built on pure invention usually collapse once the costs show up. Christianity didn’t—it grew faster because its founder had been publicly killed. That only works if people believed the core event was real.

5. Jesus fits perfectly into his historical context
Holland stresses that Jesus:
fits Jewish apocalyptic expectations of the time
behaves like other known 1st-century Jewish preachers
clashes with Roman authority in very predictable ways
He’s not an anachronism or a cosmic abstraction. He looks exactly like the kind of person Roman governors routinely executed.

6. Mythicists explain less, not more
Holland is blunt about this.
The “Jesus never existed” theory requires:
a massive, coordinated invention
across hostile Jewish and Roman cultures
accepted almost immediately
leaving multiple independent references
with zero contemporary denial saying “this man never lived”
That’s not skepticism. That’s gymnastics.
Holland’s bottom line (very him)

You don’t need to believe:
Jesus was divine
miracles happened
the resurrection is historical
The description of Jesus is accurate

But denying Jesus’ existence requires more faith than accepting it.
Or, in Holland’s style:
Christianity makes no sense unless its founder was a real, humiliatingly executed man—because no one would design a god like that on purpose.

What a load of drivel. Have you ever read any fantasy novels? There are many that contain humiliatingly executed men. Also in actual history - people executed in horrendous ways, boiling in water or oil, burned alive, slow impalement, various execution devices.
Thousands of people were executed via crucifixion, so it was not unique to one person.

Saying "denying Jesus' existence requires more faith than accepting it" is the same thing apologists use when saying it requires more faith to be an atheist than a theist. If you were an (actual) atheist you would understand this, but I doubt that you can see the similarity of the falseness. It takes some knowledge of theology, philosophy and logic to understand .
You talk about "You don’t invent a god who: gets arrested, tortured, executed naked". If you knew about modern Bible scholarship then you would know that Jesus was not called a god (nor God) in the Bible, but a man. According to the Bible Jesus never claimed to be God, so a god didn't have these things happen to him. Later Christians could make up all sorts of stuff about Jesus, but this is common with all mythologies (whether a real person or fictional person is basis of the tales) - Robin Hood, King Arthur, and so on.

Regarding your point 6, it is funny that one of the apologists (false) arguments is that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar have less evidence then Jesus, but if that was true then for each of them their existence would require one of these massive conspiracies, so they are claiming that such conspiracies actually happened. What about things like Gilgamesh, the Greek gods, the Hindu gods - was belief in them a massive conspiracy or does this mean that they actually existed? They had temples, statues, many details about what they did, and about their interactions with humans.

RE: point 5. Say there is a murder, and the cops decide person X did it, so they prosecute that person, he is tried in court, found guilty and executed. But it turns out person Y (a mysterious unknown person) was the actual murderer. Person X fits all their expectations, but is not the real deal, as Y is.

RE: point 4 -all movements are invented. Most of them do not require that their founder be killed. Early Christianity (and ever since then) does make a fantastically big offer - eternal life with their god. Most of those things you listed people didn't have anyway, so Christianity was no different from their normal society in not offering those things.

RE: point 3 - myth making in regard to actual people often occurs, even in our modern society, despite all the resources available that can be used to check. One could say especially in our modern society as stories can be spread so easily. There are tens of millions of people that believe Donald Trump did all sorts of things that he didn't do, and deny many things he did say and do because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[bilby]

It should also be mentioned that Tom Holland is not a Christian. He's very much an atheist. What he is, is a world renowned historian of the ancient world. He's one of the best qualified ever to talk about the general context in which Jesus was (allegedly) born. He can read all the source text in their orignal languages. So while he's not a religious scholar. He can talk about the other stuff, the stuff that matters more imho.

I can also recommend his book on Muhammed. In the Shadow of the Sword.

And Tom Holland agrees with Bart Ehrman that the only thing likely historically correct about the Jesus narrative was that a man called Jesus created the Jesus movement and later got executed. The rest of the story of his life is probably mythic and not true. Both of them think it's unlikely that Jesus was a tecton (carpenter/day labourer). Both of them think that it's more than likely that the Jesus character may well be several people conflated.

Yeah, likely there was an historical Clark Kent. Probably more than one. Likely even one (or more) by that name, or a close variant. Big woop. This says zip about any historical Superman.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

What do you mean? They were just Jews. Of course Christians didn't exist then..

Christians don't become a distinct identity until about 100 AD. That's when Synagoges started to have enough of all of these gentiles showing up who didn't respect Jewish doctrine.

Sometimes you find the term "Nazarene" or "Jewish Nazarene". That was the early term used to distinguish Jews who followed Jesus from the rest.

Edit: there's a context. There was a huge trend back then in the Roman world to follow ancient foreign cults. It was a massive trend. Especially Greek or Egyptian. But also Syrian. So it all fits

I can recommend the book The Golden Ass by Apuleius. To get a sense of the historical context. It describes followers of a different religion, Cult of Isis. But feels very Christian indeed.

There's nothing weird about anything about Christianity. In the context. Everything about it fits the stuff Romams were into at the time

 

[Learner]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

The church of Damascus was already established before Paul's conversion! He was travelling there to persecute and arrest Christians!

The churches in Judea Antioch, Judea and Samaria were formed by early Christians who escaped persecution after Stephen was martyred.

 

[steve_bank]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

The church of Damascus was already established before Paul's conversion! He was travelling there to persecute and arrest Christians!

The churches in Judea Antioch, Judea and Samaria were formed by early Christians who escaped persecution after Stephen was martyred.

And what are the source documents for that claim and the exact date of those documents?

I would argue precise sequencing of these kinds of events down to even a year is not possible. Even in the 1st century if you were living then.

Someone writing in the year 90 would nit have tine date stamped records,.

Living by clocks and calendars as we do today is new.

 

[Learner]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

The church of Damascus was already established before Paul's conversion! He was travelling there to persecute and arrest Christians!

The churches in Judea Antioch, Judea and Samaria were formed by early Christians who escaped persecution after Stephen was martyred.

And what are the source documents for that claim and the exact date of those documents?

I would argue precise sequencing of these kinds of events down to even a year is not possible. Even in the 1st century if you were living then.

Someone writing in the year 90 would nit have tine date stamped records,.

Living by clocks and calendars as we do today is new.

Paul's writings are often used to make the claim that he "invented" Christianity, oddly...he writes about himself as being a former Pharisee going after Christ followers which he says he also witnessed and approved of Stephen's stoning to death.

Using the same thought process as DrZoidberg nicely highlights in his post # 1,604, regarding Tom Holland. Do you think there is a specific advantage for Paul's "invention" to take off by mentioning other Christians before him that suffered when he was persecutor? Did he make it up?

We also see Luke, although he may not of been there at Stephens demise, but as someone who writes in a methodically manner, reporting like a physician/ historian... articulated differently from everyone else. There is the obvious of reporting, that shows him taking down a direct statement, 1st hand from Paul.

Acts 22:20
"And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and watching over the garments of those who were killing him."

(Paul also writes about knowing Luke...)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

The church of Damascus was already established before Paul's conversion! He was travelling there to persecute and arrest Christians!

The churches in Judea Antioch, Judea and Samaria were formed by early Christians who escaped persecution after Stephen was martyred.

And what are the source documents for that claim and the exact date of those documents?

I would argue precise sequencing of these kinds of events down to even a year is not possible. Even in the 1st century if you were living then.

Someone writing in the year 90 would nit have tine date stamped records,.

Living by clocks and calendars as we do today is new.

Paul's writings are often used to make the claim that he "invented" Christianity, oddly...he writes about himself as being a former Pharisee going after Christ followers which he says he also witnessed and approved of Stephen's stoning to death.

Using the same thought process as DrZoidberg nicely highlights in his post # 1,604, regarding Tom Holland. Do you think there is a specific advantage for Paul's "invention" to take off by mentioning other Christians before him that suffered when he was persecutor? Did he make it up?

We also see Luke, although he may not of been there at Stephens demise, but as someone who writes in a methodically manner, reporting like a physician/ historian... articulated differently from everyone else. There is the obvious of reporting, that shows him taking down a direct statement, 1st hand from Paul.

Acts 22:20
"And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and watching over the garments of those who were killing him."

(Paul also writes about knowing Luke...)

Christianity is about 50% stoicism, 50% neo-platonism and a sprinkling of Judaism.

Saying that Paul created Christianity is silly. The move toward abstract dieties not locked to cult centres was an evolution all religions was moving towards. Even the intolerance of Christianity wasn't unique. Every religion in the Mediterranean started out tolerant of other religions around 200 bc. And by 0 AD they were just as intolerant as Christianity.

Zoroastrianism is a case in point. One of the oldest religions in the Middle-East started out as Hindu style self improvement and enforced religious toleration. By the time Jesus shows up they're burning people at the stake for heresy. Or crucifying them.

Modern Judaism is mostly a Maimonides product, which in turn was heavily influenced by Christianity. Thinking that Christianity came from modern Judaism is just wrong.

Paul just said things that were in the air, that the Romans already were starting to believe.

Religion and culture is just a big soup where everything influences everything and evolution of thought goes slowly

I can keep writing stuff. But Rome's culture was changing because Rome needed changing. The old gods weren't serving it any longer. The mobility of the Romans made the pagan cults impractical.

Something was going to come and whatever the name of the prophet or what shape its funny hats of the priests had it was going going to be something along the lines of what Christianity ended up being.

 

[steve_bank]

The way I always frame it is to say Christianity as it became should be called Paulism.

He took the Jewish out of Jesus.

He urbanized and Gentile-izedz the narrative. You did not have to become Jewish and follow Jewish rules, like diet.

Christianity as it became influenced by Nicaea had little to do with a wandering Jewish prophet preaching to his fellow Jews during an existential crisis with Rome.

Paul would not have invented Christianity any more than all the Christian sects today were invented. He created his own version.

 

[Swammerdami]

First: What are we debating? We are debating the "minimal Jesus historicity hypothesis."

Richard Carrier’s target is what he calls the “minimal historicity” hypothesis about Jesus. In plain terms, this is the position held by most historians of antiquity, even very skeptical ones. It can be summarized as follows:

1. An Actual Human: An actual man named Jesus existed at some point.
2. Active Ministry: He acquired followers during his lifetime.
3. Continued Movement: His followers continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
4. Execution: This same Jesus was executed by Jewish or Roman authorities.
5. Veneration: Some of his followers soon began worshiping him as a living god or demigod

That is the hypothesis Carrier wants to overturn. He is not primarily arguing against Christianity as theology, but against this bare-bones historical Jesus.

I do not study Carrier's nonsense. I hope Carrierists in the thread will correct the above if needed.

To the above list I would add three further clarifications

• 6. He was probably baptized by John the Baptizer
• 7. He was known variously as "Jesus of Nazareth". and "Jesus Christ."
• 8. His execution was ordered or condoned by Pontius Pilate.

I list plausible additions to the hypothesis that Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD seeks to refute for reference only. It is the purpose of this thread to debate this specific hypothesis, i.e. claims 1-5 above.

Let's "Keep our eye on the ball", please. If you wish to discuss other topics, e.g. "Did Jesus perform miraculous deeds?" start another thread.

We see one Poster miss several points. Jesus (or rather Yeshu) was a common name. A device called surnames has been used to reduce confusion. The Jesus in question was often referred to as Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου /Iisoú toú Nazoraíoυ/ or Ιησούς ο Ναζωραίος /Iisoús o Nazoraíos/, usually rendered in English as "Jesus of Nazareth."

The same poster presents a confused analogy. If we conclude (counterfactually) that Clark Kent of The Daily Planet was a real human, need we then deduce the reality of Superman? This poster completely misses the point. To discuss the reality of "Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;" you will need a different thread.

Here we will claim only that evidence for an ordinary but historic Jesus of Nazareth supports the conclusion that that ordinary historic human did exist.

Do you deny that the rebel slave army existed?
If you admit that the slave army existed do you also admit that it must have had a leader?
If so, then the only question is about the name of this leader, not about his existence.

I've no idea what your point is. Carrier's is a 2-part syllogism:
(1) Evidence for Spartacus exceeds evidence for Jesus.
(2) Therefore Jesus did not exist.
I have NO interest in discussing the truth or falsity of (1). My point is simply that (2) doesn't follow from (1).

With Jesus that wasn't even his name.

Hunh? What's this silliness? Let's digress to discuss Catherine the Great. (Was she historic?)
She was christened "Sophia Augusta Frederica von Anhalt-Zerbst". No "Catherine" there.
When she married Peter III she became Екатерина Алексеевна Романова or (romanized) Yekaterina Alekseyevna Romanova. Still no "Catherine", though there is a "Yekaterina."
Is this mismatch part of your reason for rejecting the historicity of Catherine? If not WTF are you arguing with your "With Jesus that wasn't even his name."??

There is no evidence outside of the Bible for his existence (Josephus is not relevant).

I suppose Tacitus is also irrelevant? They're irrelevant because they contradict the teachings of Our Prophet Doctor Richard?

Are you aware that Josephus was essentially an eye-witness to much that he describes? He was probably well acquainted with the man who ordered the execution of Jesus' brother James.

Speaking of Jesus' brother James, it is this rather well-attested relationship that increases the probability of historicity from a mere 96% or so, to 99+%. I've noticed that you Carrierists firmly avoid any attempt to refute his historic existence. Nor do you comment on Carrier's inane "solution" that James the Just was (the non-existent) James ben Damneus.

Many itinerant preachers existed at time that Jesus is claimed to have lived, there may even have been one or more called Yeshua, but that doesn't mean that they are the same person as the one that later was named Jesus.

How many of those Jesuses were called "of Nazareth"? How many lent their name o the cult of "Nazarenes"? How many were crucified by Pontius Pilate? How many of them inspired a great religion?

Jesus was either totally fictional or a very mythologized real person.

Cite?

I like Tom Holland's theory. He fleshes it out more in his book Dominion.

1. The “crucified messiah” problem (aka: no one would make this up).

Holland’s favorite point.
In the 1st-century Roman world, crucifixion was:
reserved for rebels, slaves, and traitors
deliberately humiliating
designed to erase honour

A crucified Jewish messiah is basically a theological faceplant.
If early Christians were inventing a founder, they picked the worst possible option.

You don’t invent a god who:
gets arrested
tortured
executed naked

by imperial authorities

That only makes sense if something like that actually happened, and the followers were stuck explaining it afterward.

In addition to the stigma associated with "hanging from a tree", there are several other stories in the Gospels which would be bizarrely out-of-place if the Gospels were fictions intended to attract a cult following. The most likely explanation for including such incongruous stories is that they were TRUE.

2. Early, hostile sources mention Jesus anyway

Holland emphasizes that Jesus appears in sources written by people who disliked Christians—which is historical gold.

Key examples:
Tacitus (Roman historian, c. 116 CE)
Mentions Christus, executed under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign.
Tacitus despised Christians and had zero incentive to help them.

Josephus (Jewish historian, late 1st century)
Mentions Jesus as a real person who was executed.

He also mentions -- in a much LESS controversial paragraph -- the execution of Jesus' brother James.

Yes, parts are later edited by Christians—but Holland stresses that most scholars agree there’s a solid historical core.

People don’t invent your hero inside your enemies’ histories.

3. Paul’s letters are too early to be myth-making
Paul’s letters are written roughly 20–30 years after Jesus’ death.
That’s nothing in ancient history terms.
Paul:
personally knows Jesus’ brother James
knows Peter
treats Jesus as a recent, executed human being
This is not the timeline where myths about purely fictional gods normally crystallize. Too many living witnesses. Too many people who could say, “That didn’t happen.”

4. The movement explodes for the wrong reasons

Holland points out something awkward:

Early Christianity offered:
persecution
no political power
no wealth
no military backing
social stigma
Yet it spreads anyway.

Movements built on pure invention usually collapse once the costs show up. Christianity didn’t—it grew faster because its founder had been publicly killed. That only works if people believed the core event was real.

5. Jesus fits perfectly into his historical context
Holland stresses that Jesus:
fits Jewish apocalyptic expectations of the time
behaves like other known 1st-century Jewish preachers
clashes with Roman authority in very predictable ways
He’s not an anachronism or a cosmic abstraction. He looks exactly like the kind of person Roman governors routinely executed.

6. Mythicists explain less, not more
Holland is blunt about this.
The “Jesus never existed” theory requires:
a massive, coordinated invention
across hostile Jewish and Roman cultures
accepted almost immediately
leaving multiple independent references
with zero contemporary denial saying “this man never lived”
That’s not skepticism. That’s gymnastics.
Holland’s bottom line (very him)

You don’t need to believe:
Jesus was divine
miracles happened
the resurrection is historical
The description of Jesus is accurate

But denying Jesus’ existence requires more faith than accepting it.
Or, in Holland’s style:
Christianity makes no sense unless its founder was a real, humiliatingly executed man—because no one would design a god like that on purpose.

What a load of drivel. Have you ever read any fantasy novels?

How about YOU? Have YOU studied the Gospels with an open mind? Have YOU read the opinions of competent historians? Or just hoaxsters like Carrier?

Saying "denying Jesus' existence requires more faith than accepting it" is the same thing apologists use when saying it requires more faith to be an atheist than a theist. If you were an (actual) atheist you would understand this, but I doubt that you can see the similarity of the falseness.

Am I an "actual atheist"? From my earliest memories I've never believed in God. Never discussed it after the 7th grade when some friends cracked jokes about implausibilities in the Bible. (By 8th grade they'd grown out of that childish phase.)

This Board has taught me that SOME devout atheists have much in common with some devout Christians. They just have faith in the preachings of Carrier the Hoaxter instead of Tammy Faye Bakker.

What about things like Gilgamesh, ...

BTW, Carrier iirc cites Gilgamesh in his inane "Bayesian"argument. ("Gilgamesh is not historic, so Jesus isn't either")
Would Richard the Prophet be disconcerted to read:

Most historians generally agree that Gilgamesh was a historical king of the Sumerian city-state Uruk.

Does this mean historians endorse all the fictions associated with that King? Do we rational thinkers endorse the fictions associated with Jesus?

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

Wrong again, as Learner points out. Carrierists have so much evidence they need to ignore, they just throw out "Irrelevant!", "Stephen is also a Myth!", "Fake News!". "Whatever!"

Yeah. Whatever.

Additionally there is no historical evidence for the existence of early Christians in the period of thirty years after Jesus's death. So much for a spontaneous, big movement. They only came along after Paul and other writers invented Christianity.

The church of Damascus was already established before Paul's conversion! He was travelling there to persecute and arrest Christians!

The churches in Judea Antioch, Judea and Samaria were formed by early Christians who escaped persecution after Stephen was martyred.

Mr. Inhabitant? Will you answer a question your fellow Carrierist refuses to answer?
Do you think  The Buddha was an historic person?

 

[steve_bank]

Historians in our modern sense did not exist in ancient times. Communications and recounting of events were primarily oral.

That Jews and others were crucified for a number of reasons is not in question. In Judea anyone suspected of sedition with a flowing would likely be dealt with.

There were militant Jews, Masada.

There were more than one claimant to the Jewish messiah prophesy.

Given what we know of hte times I still go with the gospel Jesus as a composite character. Embellished with the supernatural.

Someone brought up Spartacus. From a search the words fragmentary evidence.

The old Spartacus movie tuned the tale into a love story. Some events depicted may have occurred but fictional characters, events, and dialog. It is called literary license, today and 2000 years ago. Fiction 2000 years ago was well developed.

Creative (or "artistic") license is generally understood to mean the freedom artists may take when handling factual material. From William Shakespeare to Peter Shaffer (Amadeus) and beyond, history has inspired, but not controlled, artists.Nov 24, 2020

 

[bilby]

If we conclude (counterfactually) that Clark Kent of The Daily Planet was a real human, need we then deduce the reality of Superman? This poster completely misses the point.

On the contrary, this poster entirely understands your point, and points out that it is pointless.

My point (which you completely missed) is NOT that Clark Kent is fiction (though he is), but rather that it doesn't matter one whit whether he is or is not fiction.

There were likely several historical Clark Kents, and all of them were nobodies. Whether any or all of them inspired the character*, their existence is banal. The same is true of Jesus.

We might as well discuss whether carpenters existed in first century Judea. The answer is "yes", and "duh", and "who cares?".

The only plausible response to the latter is "because one was the Son of God", which neither of us thinks is true.

All athiests achieve by discussing the historicity of Jesus is to give ammunition to Christians who think all atheists are secretly Christians, who are just mad at God. We should be smart enough not to do them that favour.

"Did Jesus exist?" is, as you point out, two questions. You want this thread to be entirely about the question of whether the character in the Bible is based on a real (but entirely non-supernatural) person. To which the answer is "Almost certainly, but you can't prove it, and nobody should give a crap either way anyway".







* and clearly they did; The trope of a midwestern farm boy coming to the big city was commonplace to the point of stereotypical long before the first comic book was ever drawn

 

[Swammerdami]

There were likely several historical Clark Kents, and all of them were nobodies. Whether any or all of them inspired the character*, their existence is banal. The same is true of Jesus.

But WHY do you assume that ALL of the Jesuses were "nobodies"? If I stipulate that your scenario -- (whatever it is; saying "all of the Jesuses were nobodies" doesn't tell us much) -- is plausible, will you in turn stipulate that MAYBE there was a preacher so charismatic that his disciples treasured his teachings even after he was dead?

Please consider this carefully; would it not be delightful if we could break this impasse?!

I do NOT want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps the anti-historical position is that it is simply more plausible that Peter and/or Paul would have INVENTED a Jesus than that such a charismatic preacher existed.

But can you not agree that it is ALSO at least plausible that a charismatic preacher DID exist? That even if the "credit" for the invention of Christianity belongs mainly to the mythmaker(s) (Paul or Peter or ???) that perhaps there WAS a unique Jesus they could point to, to underlie their myths?

Do you see the possibility? Can you stipulate this is at least POSSIBLE? If we can BOTH agree that 0 < p < 1 then we've made SOME progress even if our guesses about 'p' are wildly different.

Good! Now it becomes just a matter of assessing probabilities. When I do that I come up with 99% that Jesus historicity is true. Your number may be much smaller, but would it be Zero? In prior threads I've submitted LOTS of evidence that pushes p toward 1. But this has no effect if you adamantly insist, without reason, that p is exactly zero.

We might as well discuss whether carpenters existed in first century Judea. The answer is "yes", and "duh", and "who cares?".

Gibberish. Why waste our time with gibberish?

The only plausible response to the latter is "because one was the Son of God", which neither of us thinks is true.

Non sequitur.

All athiests achieve by discussing the historicity of Jesus is to give ammunition to Christians who think all atheists are secretly Christians, who are just mad at God. We should be smart enough not to do them that favour.

Are you suggesting that some Christian might read my comments here at IIDB, and come to some stupid conclusion which would adversely affect society? I wish I were so powerful!

"Did Jesus exist?" is, as you point out, two questions. You want this thread to be entirely about the question of whether the character in the Bible is based on a real (but entirely non-supernatural) person. To which the answer is "Almost certainly, but you can't prove it, and nobody should give a crap either way anyway".

To the contrary; I regard it as proven "based on the preponderance of evidence" and further. Why I "give a crap" about it is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps I get some masochistic or sadistic pleasure watching otherwise intelligent people make fools of themselves.

 

[bilby]

But WHY do you assume that ALL of the Jesuses were "nobodies"?

Because there's zero evidence to the contrary. And what scant evidence there is, largely describe him as such - poor birth, lowly job, political agitator; So basically, an ordinary Judean of his time.