Misplaced Pages

Christ myth theory

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.15.47.241 (talk) at 20:49, 30 August 2005 (The goal of my change is to provide a metaview of the Jesus Myth that finds the common ground between those who reject and those who propound the Jesus Myth. A distinction lawyers should appreciate.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:49, 30 August 2005 by 216.15.47.241 (talk) (The goal of my change is to provide a metaview of the Jesus Myth that finds the common ground between those who reject and those who propound the Jesus Myth. A distinction lawyers should appreciate.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Jesus-Myth idea is the position of a small group of scholars that a literal and historical Jesus did not exist but instead portrays abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical allusion of a higher knowledge, awareness and consciousness which is not readily apparent to one who adheres to the perception of reality as defined by the five senses. The history of the Jesus Myth idea, as well as arguments supporting and opposing it are discussed below.

The History of the Jesus Myth

The first scholarly proponent of the Jesus Myth idea was probably Nineteenth Century historian Bruno Bauer, who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo. His arguments made little impact on the wider scholarly community of his time, though Karl Marx's collaborator Friedrich Engels was impressed with his theory. . In the early Twentieth Century, however, a few other scholars published arguments in favor of the Jesus Myth idea. These treatments were more influential and merited several book-length responses by historians and New Testament scholars. Since then, the Jesus Myth has had few academic proponents but has been advanced by informed lay-persons such as mathematician William B. Smith and professor of German George Albert Wells.

Presently, most historians and New Testament scholars consider the Jesus Myth idea as resolved in favor of Jesus' historicity . The eminent classicist Michael Grant, for example, stated that "odern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory . . . . It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars." (Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p. 200). Nevertheless, Earl Doherty -- who has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages -- has infused the Jesus Myth idea with fresh vigor with his website and publication of his book, The Jesus Puzzle. Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favorable reviews by Dr. Robert M. Price and Internet Infidels founder Richard Carrier. To date, however, Mr. Doherty's arguments have not impacted the academic consensus in favor of Jesus' existence.

Does It Matter?

Whether an historical person named Jesus was crucified and that event intiated the evolutionary path that developed into the various Christianites that described early Christianity and then ultimately into the orthodox forms that triumphed in the 4th Century or whether there was no historical person from which a variety of disparate groups came to use the same name for their central mythological symbol (the arguments of those who propound the Jesus mystery) probably makes little difference to the most important aspect of understanding the development of Christianity, namely that as a religion it evolved from many strands that were fused together into what became Christianity. This happened as part of merger of Christianity with the Rome into a state sponsored religion. From this predecessor, all existing sects of Christianity have evolved.


Arguments In Support of the Jesus Myth

  • Lack of early non-Christian references to Jesus. Advocates of the Jesus Myth idea point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers. They argue that no Roman or Jewish sources from the first century mention him. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus, whose Antiquities contains two references to Jesus. But the first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, contains obvious Christian content that a Jew such as Josephus would not have written and is not mentioned by second-century Christian authors. The second reference, which mentions Jesus along with his brother James, is also disputed.
  • Lack of references to the historical Jesus in the letters of Paul. The letters of Paul are widely accepted as the earliest Christian documents. Yet they contain few references to the details of Jesus' life and ministry as reported in the Gospels. Advocates of the Jesus Myth idea believe that this silence is best explained by the fact that Jesus did not exist as a historical person, but was a mythological ideal or existed on a different plane.
  • Presence of platonic influence on Pauline thought. Earl Doherty has aggressively argued that Paul's letters reveal a strong platonic influence. According to Mr. Doherty, this platonic influence means that Paul can speak of events that sound as if they happened on earth, but in fact happened in a celestial realm. As a result, the few apparent references to the life and ministry of Jesus in Paul's letters do not mean that Jesus was a historical person.
  • Influence of the Old Testament on the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' life. It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Hebrew Bible. The Gospel of Matthew is the most obvious example of this feature, as its author often explicitly states that events that he narrates fulfilled prophecies made in the Hebrew Bible. (See, e.g., Matt. 1:22: “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.”). Advocates of the Jesus Myth idea believe that the gospels are not history but a type of midrash; creative narratives based on the stories and prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. As such, they cannot be used as sources to demonstrate the existence of a historical Jesus.
  • Pagan similarities to the Gospel accounts. Some advocates of the Jesus Myth idea argue that the story of Jesus as found in the Gospels reveals remarkable parallels with “dying-and-rising” savior gods well known in the pagan world in the first century. (See The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy). The Jesus Mysteries argues that Jewish mystics adapted the pagan myths of Osiris-Dionysus into a myth of their own, so as to impart certain spiritual teachings. Evidence of these origins was later suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church after it gained ascendancy among the various Christian sects.

Arguments Against the Jesus Myth

  • Josephus provides reliable evidence about the historical Jesus. Although most opponents of the Jesus Myth idea agree that Christian scribes corrupted the manuscripts containing the Testimonium Flavianum, they point out that most modern scholars believe that the core of the Testimonium is authentic and constitutes a reliable first-century non-Christian reference to the historical Jesus.. The second reference to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities, is deemed completely authentic by most scholars. The supposed "silence" of other contemporary non-Christian sources is explained by the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews.
  • Pauline evidence of a historical Jesus. Opponents of the Jesus Myth idea claim that the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul’s correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack detail about the historical Jesus. Unlike the gospels, Paul’s letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus. Moreover, despite their occasional nature, Paul’s letters contain a number of references to the historical Jesus (See, e.g., Gal. 1:19, 3:16, 4:4, Rom. 1:3, 3:1, 15:8, and 1 Cor. 11:23-25, 15:4). Attempts by advocates of the Jesus Myth idea to explain these references as metaphorical or otherwise not references to a truly historical Jesus are seen by opponents to rest on questionable translations, to be ad hoc and ultimately unpersuasive.
  • The Gospels are ancient biographies and impart at least some historical information about Jesus. Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth idea argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient biographies. (See What Are the Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography, by Richard A. Burridge). Ancient biographies attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments about their subject matter. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, they contain sufficient historical information about Jesus to establish his historicity. In fact, many scholars believe that the gospels are generally reliable sources of information about the historical Jesus.
  • Not so parallel pagan myths. The supposed parallels with pagan myths has gained little traction in the academic community. The Jesus Mysteries has been criticized for heavy reliance on out-dated secondary sources and for confusing the issue of causation (just who was borrowing from who). Others have questioned the nature of the supposed dying-and-rising pagan saviors and their similarity to the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

In addition to these points, opponents of the Jesus Myth idea have made the following arguments:

  • Silence of Christianity’s opponents. Professor Robert Van Voorst asks why, “if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.” (The Study of Jesus Outside the New Testament, page 15).
  • The best explanation of origins. According to Professor Van Voorst, advocates of the Jesus Myth idea have consistently failed to offer a better explanation for the origins of Christianity than the existence of Jesus as its founding figure: “The hypotheses they have advanced, based on an idiosyncratic understanding of mythology, have little independent corroborative evidence to commend them to others. (Ibid., page 16).
  • Insufficient time for legendary development. Historian A.N. Sherwin-White speaks for some scholars in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament where he contends that mythicism as an explanation of the origins of Christianity is implausible because the time was too short for the formation of myth in the relevant cultural milieu.

Reference Books

  • The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
  • The Jesus Puzzle (1999; revised edition 2000) ISBN 0968601405, by Earl Doherty
  • The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by George A.Wells
  • Jesus Outside of the New Testament, by Robert Van Voorst
  • The Evidence for Jesus, by R.T. France
  • A Marginal Jew, by J.P. Meier

External links