Ted Hoffman

Someone may ask "So what?".
To me, this is a significant decision/ conclusion.
I think at heart, I have always disbelieved in the Gospel stories but I always believed there was a figure behind them (a historical Jesus).
Not any more.
I am making this announcement because I feel confident to defend this position that I have chosen and I feel exhilarated that I have reached a decision concerning the question about whether there was a historical Jesus. I therefore join Quentin(Iaison), Vorkosigan, Earl Doherty and other scholars.

My main reason for believing the Jesus story is a complete myth is:

The preponderant lack of supporting historical evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus/ Christ during the early part of the first century.

There has been discussion about the paucity of any historical evidence (about anything other than Jesus) from the first century. This is simply untrue.

The following is an incomplete list of writers, historians and scholars who are contemporaries of Jesus who we can reasonably expect to have known and written about Jesus but never mentioned about him in their works(I include Josephus because I can pound the Testimonium flavianum anytime I find it necessary and Pliny The Younger and Tacitus talk about a belief, NOT a person).
And another thing, those who get to mention Jesus mention him many years after his death.

20BCE
Philo Judaeus

C.E. 4-97
Apollonius of Tyana was a philosopher and mystic contemporary with Jesus (and rather similar to him) who travelled widely and was revered even by Roman Emperors- his words and teachings were recorded by his disciple Damis (our information comes from Philostratus c.220) - from what we know he apparently had no knowledge of Jesus, his teachings, or his followers.

Justus of Tiberias was a writer contemporary with Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." [Tiberias is a town near Galilee, Tiberius is a Roman name]

0-29
Velleius Paterculus wrote Roman History.

30-39
Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote in Rome (History of Alexander)

Marcus/Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote several works on oratory and literary criticisms in Rome.

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome. C. Musonius Rufus was a Roman eques and Stoic philosopher, born about 30 C.E. Many leading Roman citizens studied philosophy with him, and he also taught the ex-slave philosopher Epictetus.

50-69
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.

60-100
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his worked jointly shows Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.

Dio of Prusa wrote in Alexandria.

Silius Italicus wrote the Punica in Naples.

Sextus Julius Frontinus wrote many technical works in Rome - 2 survive - e.g. on Aquaducts.

[During this period the Roman foundations of the Christian Church were laid - the action (and many of the actors) moved to Rome.]

80-89
Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote many satires in Rome.

90-99
Josephus (Flavianus) wrote Jewish Antiquities which nowadays contains a famous passage (the Testamonium Flavianum), which is not considered reliable evidence by most (non-Christian) scholars. Josephus could not possibly have called Jesus the Christ - it flies in the face of his beliefs and the very theme of the book. Josephus spent whole pages on minor criminals (debunking any claims to be Christ) yet supposedly wrote a tiny passage about this allegedly most signficant character and events. About a century later Origen comments that Josephus did not call Jesus the Christ - this, and other differences mean Origen's copy is not like our current copy. There are various versions of the passage, each are unlikely to have been written by Josephus - it was almost certainly inserted centuries later by Eusebius (whose copy of Josephus is the first to show this passage). Similarly, the other reference to Christ appears to be a later interpolation. Our earliest manuscript dates from c.1000CE. These passages are well discussed elsewhere, e.g. here, by Earl Doherty.

100-130
Epictetus' The Golden Sayings of Epictetus. speeches on Stoicism (after retiring to Greece) were recorded by Arrian, he refers to the Christians (possibly authentic) in Discourses IV 7: "Through madness it is possible for a man to be so disposed towards these things and through habit, as the Galileans."

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy. He made astronomical observations of Mercury and Venus between 127 and 132 since Ptolemy listed four observations which Theon made in 127, 129, 130 and 132. From these observations Theon made estimates of the greatest angular distance that Mercury and Venus can reach from the Sun.

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome.

Nicomachus of Gerasa wrote on mathematics.

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Hierocles wrote some Stoic works.

Thallus perhaps wrote about this time or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: ''Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Phlegon probably wrote during this period - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events, if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.

Favorinus, a skeptic, a philosopher and friend of Plutarch, wrote in Gaul.

c.111-4
Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus) wrote of a movement founded by ''Christ'' considered a God by his followers - this confirms that their were Christians who believed in a Christ by that time - but proves nothing about Jesus.

c.112-5
Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but at best he is merely reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions. No-one refers to this passage in Tacitus for another millenium, and our earliest manuscript dates to c.1100 CE .

c.112-120
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus in Life of Claudius mentioned unrest at the instigation of 'Chrestus'. This is a common Greek name and was also a mystic name for an Initiate (meaning the Good) - this Chrestus seems to have been active in Rome, thus is unlikely to have been Jesus Christ.

c.120-150
Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote on wrote a History of Rome inter alia - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine " (Orations 46.2)

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism, a little survives.

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy .

Arrian wrote in Athens (on Alexander inter alia)

Menelaus of Alexandria wrote on mathematics.

Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) wrote the astronomical masterpiece the Almagest (the Greatest) in Alexandria.

Sepher Yetzirah (Book of Formation) may date from around this period (perhaps R. Akiba c.120, or later 2nd century).

c.150
Marcus Cornelius Fronto scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians, fragments are preserved in the Minucius Felix' Octavius.

c.150-180
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations - he refers once to the Christians (possibly an interpolation) in XI, 3 "What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed, or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man’s own judgment, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity, and in a way to persuade another without scenic show."

Mara Bar-Serapion, as early as this, wrote: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished."

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Apollodorus compiled a large Greek Mythology.

Appian wrote Roman History.

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics.

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works.

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote Enchiridion, On Confusions in Poems; Solutions to Difficulties in Comedy; Solutions in Tragedy; and very many other works.

Numenius of Apamea wrote philosophy.

Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus (Marcus Aurelius' teacher) spoke - On the Constitution.

c.170
Lucian of Samosata satirised Christians and their priests at length.

c.176-190
Galen wrote many works in Rome - some books on medicine, and some fragments which mention Christ or Christians survive : De pulsuum differentiis, iii.3 : ''One might more easily teach novelties to the followers of Moses and Christ than to the physicians and philosophers who cling fast to their schools.'' ii.4 : ''...in order that one should not at the very beginning, as if one had come into the school of Moses and Christ, hear talk of undemonstrated laws, and that where it is least appropriate.'' A passage which survives only in an Arabic quotation: ''If I had in mind people who taught their pupils in the same way as the followers of Moses and Christ teach theirs--for they order them to accept everything on faith--I should not have given you a definition.'' A passage taken from Galen's lost summary of Plato's Republic, only preserved in Arabic quotations: ''Most people are unable to follow any demonstrative argument consecutively; hence they need parables, and benefit from them...just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables [and miracles], and yet sometimes acting in the same way [as those who philosophize]. For their contempt of death [and its sequel] is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint in cohabitation...'' (Richard Walzer: Galen on Jews and Christians, 1949)

c.178
Celsus wrote his On The True Doctrine criticising Christianity : '' Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth'' , ''It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction ''

Lucius Flavius Philostratus was born ca.170 CE on the Greek island of Lemnus. He became one of the leading sophists or orators of his day, spent some years at the Roman imperial court, and publicized several books, among which are Life of the sophists and an intriguing biography of the charismatic miracle worker Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus died between 244 and 249.

Secondly
Even Christian sources outside the Gospels do not speak of a historical Jesus, when they refer to Christ, they do so in non-terrestrial spiritual terms. The following is a list of such sources:

Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
Most or even all of these authors do not mention historical places and dates that can be used in constructing historical Jesus.

The argument is, Jesus, being the nexus of such a religion would have been the main point of interest for the early christian authors. It means even without a historical Jesus, we would still have a christian religion.

Thirdly
The early church fathers Never mentioned the testimony being flouted as "historical evidence" by the later christians. For example considering the testimonium flavianum:·
* Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) never once quoted this passage -- even in the face of charges that Christians had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).

*Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ.

* Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but never once cites the Testimonium. Perhaps it was added later?

So, Its a Eusebian fabrication (besides other reasons). The anachronistic way that Tacitus uses the term "procurator" (while referring to Pilate) is also an indication of later interpolation.

FourthlyThe synoptic problem and the fact that Mark was Not Mark (Peters' interpreter as Papias allegedly wrote).

FifthlyThe insurmountable contradictions between the narratives of the Gospels themselves concerning Jesus' story(esp burial and resurrection accounts) and also contradictions with the accounts in the apocryphal gospels of Peter and Epistula Apostolorum and the allowance of a plausible account excluding the empty tomb and resurrection account.

Sixth The irrationality of the concept of redemption.

Lastly The inadequacy and lack of logical and naturalistic plausibility of the whole story of Jesus and Concept of God, The mythological nature (eg extreme similarity to the Homeric epics) of the Jesus story.

So my belief is the story of Jesus (the historical one in the Gospels) was created later by christians to provide a historical foundation of what had become a popular religion threatening to be torn apart by skeptics.

I rest my case.

(I expect a round of "welcome" from Iaison et al, and sharp rebuttals from CX, Layman, Bede, Ilgwamg and anyone else who disagrees with my arguments)
Btw, I would appreciate it if someone could provide a list of reknown Jesus Mythers. SO that I can get acquainted with the intellectual community I am joining.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

shinobi909

Intensity, I commend you on a fine posting.
I don't belive in a real Jesus at any point in history either. The burden of proof is on the people who claim such a person is real. So far, I don't see any good proof. My reading of the subject comes from essays on the net, but I have seen an auther by the name of G.A Wells mentioned. I would like to read some books on the subject as well. At the moment, I base my rejection of the historical jesus theory on the striking resemblance it has to other pre-existing myths of other cultures. It seems to me that beliveing in a real Jesus is like beliving in a real Hercules, or Achilles.

The Lost Number

Your "reasons" have all been debunked. They all betray one great flaw: you automatically associate the Christian Jesus with the historical Jesus. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that they were two very different people.

All of your arguments for the complete non-existence of any historical Jesus are in fact simply evidence against the version of him that Christians embrace: the mystical, virgin-born, miracle working, raised from the dead Son of God. It is clear that there is an astonishing lack of any confirmation for the existence such a person in history, which in and of itself demonstrates the belief that Jesus is the "Son of God" to be a work of entertaining fiction, at best.

However, a historical Jesus of some kind is still practically a certainty. Things like Jesus' baptism--an embarassment to Christianity, since it's done to remove sin, yet the Christian Jesus (in direct contrast with the historical one) was supposed to be without sin--the crucifixion--which would have been a blasphemous idea to Jews at that time--,and a number of other features of Jesus, would not be made up. They can only reflect real events, happening to a real person. A real Jesus. No, you won't find much written about him, but that's because he was just a normal, non-miracle working, completely human, relatively minor cult leader at the time who was in fact so irrelevant that almost nobody even bothered to mention him.

Ted Hoffman

The Lost Number
Your "reasons" have all been debunked. They all betray one great flaw: you automatically associate the Christian Jesus with the historical Jesus. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that they were two very different people.
They are both myths. The Historical one and the mythical one are both myths. Saying there is an obvious disstinction is a quibble.

Pick one reason and debunk it here. I dare you.

All of your arguments for the complete non-existence of any historical Jesus are in fact simply evidence against the version of him that Christians embrace: the mystical, virgin-born, miracle working, raised from the dead Son of God. It is clear that there is an astonishing lack of any confirmation for the existence such a person in history, which in and of itself demonstrates the belief that Jesus is the "Son of God" to be a work of entertaining fiction, at best.
I am glad you agree

However, a historical Jesus of some kind is still practically a certainty. Things like Jesus' baptism--an embarassment to Christianity, since it's done to remove sin, yet the Christian Jesus (in direct contrast with the historical one) was supposed to be without sin--the crucifixion--which would have been a blasphemous idea to Jews at that time--,and a number of other features of Jesus, would not be made up. They can only reflect real events, happening to a real person.
I find the embarrasment criterion and the use of particular pericopes very inadequate.
The fact that a myth has certain embarrasing moments does not translate it to a fact.

Is it your contention that myths have no events that are embarrasing or that demean the hero in them?

A real Jesus. No, you won't find much written about him, but that's because he was just a normal, non-miracle working, completely human, relatively minor cult leader at the time who was in fact so irrelevant that almost nobody even bothered to mention him.
Or he never existed.

Vorkosigan

Can you demonstrate how Jesus' Baptism is embarrassing to Mark, who originally brought us the story?

Also, can you explain how John the Baptist baptized Jesus for sins, when Josephus clearly explained that JtB DID NOT baptize for remission of sins (in the western version) OR lived several decades before the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (in the Slavonic version)? Why do you buy the Gospel version and not the Josephus version?

Vorkosigan

Clutch

Why does it matter?

Notice, regarding the comparison with Hercules and Achilles, that nobody here has offered any argument that these characters were not based on real people -- powerful warriors, say, who were given divine properties and exaggerated powers through legend. I think that's perfectly possible, and moreover a plausible account of how such stories might come about -- but I don't think it's possible that the legends are true.

Similarly, Sherlock Holmes was based on Joseph Bell, I'm told. So what? Does that make Conan Doyle's fiction into fact?

So I wonder whether the motivation for the Mythers isn't a somewhat misplaced concern that granting a historical Jesus (who needn't even have been called "Jesus"!) is too great a concession to Christianity.

But the postulation of some actual person provides a mechanism for the origin of such stories; it's an inference to a reasonable explanation. And it carries virtually *no* commitment to verisimilitude.

diana

We seem to have that in common.

Based on what evidence/literature? I could just as easily argue that the Jesus in the synoptic gospel was a "different historical person" than the one reported in Mark, and at the same time argue that obviously Paul had some historical figure behind the Christ he worshipped, who was in turn yet another "historical person."

The basis for the stories you're arguing are true (or based upon a true person) are all decidedly Christian sources. Just because Christians can't explain why John the Baptist would baptize a "spotless" Jesus does not mean this couldn't be part of a myth that they accept as true. They can't explain the Trinity concept so it makes a particle of sense, either--but the concept's rational bankruptcy does not prevent them from believing every word, preaching it to others, and being indignant when anyone dares suggest they're out to lunch for including something so self-contradictory in their belief system.

I concur. Although I would add the word "macabre" between "entertaining" and "fiction."

Right.

The Church of Christ holds that people are born without sin and if they die before reaching "the age of accountability," they go straight to heaven. When it is pointed out that, given this doctrine, the way to save the most souls would be to murder infants (then repent oneself), this doctrine becomes uncomfortably embarrassing for them, as well. By your logic, then, this doctrine can't have been "made up."

They also have trouble with the "John the Baptist was Elijah returned" concept, since they don't believe in reincarnation. So that must be true, too. Otherwise, why would it be in the holy scripture of people who do not believe it? Isn't that what you're saying?

So the possibility that the gospels were simply written by geographically separated people who all held slightly different doctrinal views concerning their god and what, exactly, happened to him is right out, then? If these people bought into the trinity rubbish without encountering the Insurmountable Wall of Reason, what makes you think they'd not write a nice story about Jesus being baptized without realizing that this logically contradicts the notion that he was supposedly without sin?

I think, on the surface, the story about Jesus getting dunked by J the B sounds very Xnly. After all, here we have the most perfect man/nonman who ever lived, and he is subjecting himself to a goatskin-wearing, locust-eating loon who just wandered in from the wilderness with the proverbial sandwich board, ranting about the Kingdom of Heaven. That was Jesus, leading by example. It also gave the gospel writers an opportunity to insert the obligatory dove imagery.

Did it make a shred of sense, though? Hell no. Neither does the idea of one person paying the price for the sins of all, but that doesn't present a problem for your average Xn, either.

May I attribute the "it had to be true because it logically contradicts the doctrine of its believers" argument to you? This is a new one on me, and I like to give credit where credit is due, whenever possible.

Almost nobody? Are you suggesting that somebody did mention him during his alleged lifetime?

Reference, please.

Assuming you fail to produce this reference, may I suggest the possibility that there was no historical Jesus at all. The stories of Jesus appear to have been based upon the elements common to "saviors" of all stripes, and the stories of his ministry came later, and the stories of his miraculous birth even later.

For the record, I hold that, while there may have been an actual person upon whom the Xn Jesus was based, there is no evidence which suggests this and it's all speculation, at best. To suggest otherwise is equivalent to arguing that since an entire myth structure grew up around the idea of Zeus, there must have been a real person behind it.

I also argue that it's quite irrelevant. If Jesus wasn't the person Xns say he was, who gives a flip whether he even existed, anyway? Arguing for or against "Jesus was myth" is little more than academic exercise.

d

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

Good question, Clutch.

I think that acknowledging the possibility (which is the best we can do, since it cannot be proven some historical Jesus person didn't exist) helps people shed a bit more of the indoctrination of their childhood, which helps them make the transition from viewing the Jesus stories as Undisputed Historical Fact, Proof of Miraculous Events and the Truth of Xnty, to seeing the whole shebang in the same light as The Iliad.

d

The Lost Number

What? How do you come to that conclusion? What is incorrect about saying there is a pronounced distinction between a normal, human, historical figure named "Jesus", who created and first preached the religion of Christianity; and a virgin born, miracle working, risen from the dead son of God who did the same?
Only one? Cool. I could have painstakingly debunked each and every one in great detail, but you were nice enough to just ask for a single example. Thanks! Here's one:
"C.E. 4-97
Apollonius of Tyana was a philosopher and mystic contemporary with Jesus (and rather similar to him) who travelled widely and was revered even by Roman Emperors- his words and teachings were recorded by his disciple Damis (our information comes from Philostratus c.220) - from what we know he apparently had no knowledge of Jesus, his teachings, or his followers."
Assuming his "words and teachings" are really his and recorded accurately; Apollonius of Tyana concerned himself with relevant religions, most notably pagan ones. A(n at that time) trivial, non-pagan cult like Christianity would not have been very relevant to him, and so he wouldn't mention Jesus.
No, but when an embarrasment in a myth is directly in contradiction with it's teachings, or is one of the foundations of such, that is room for wondering if that event or something like it really did happen, as such a humiliating story doesn't have much reason for being just made up.

Vorkosigan:
I already did, but I'll do it in more detail here: The Gospel version of John the Baptist's baptism is one for the remission of sins. The Gospel version of Jesus is of a perfect, flawless being i.e. one who never sinned in any way. He therefore would not be baptized. But (the real) Jesus was of course not anything near a perfect being. He was a normal human, probably devoutely religious, which means he could easily have had himself baptized (and apparently did). The Gospel authors and others of their time were well aware of this very relevant this fact. A biography of Jesus would be more authentic the more closely it followed what people "knew" about Jesus, including his baptism. Further, an excuse was needed as for why a being without sin would do something that was supposed to take away sin, hence the excuse/s of the Gospel ("to fulfill all righteousness", or some such jibberish).
Probably due to ignorance of the Gospel authors and their intended crowd - they didn't know a whole hell of a lot about John the Baptist, and assumed his "baptism" was to "wash away sins". Rumors and such tend to produce such false assumptions.

Toto

Btw, I would appreciate it if someone could provide a list of reknown Jesus Mythers. SO that I can get acquainted with the intellectual community I am joining.


Join the JesusMysteries group at yahoogroups. You can find it referenced on Doherty's web page <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.com</a> .