Jesus, the Christian Myth

[Valjean]

Errr. I'm a Norse pagan, so I don't have a horse in this race, but historically speaking Jesus may be the single most well-documented person to ever live. There is more(and closer in time) about Jesus than there are Greek philosophers, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. The question is not "did Jesus exist", it is "was he of divine origin". Clearly for me the answer to the latter is an emphatic "no".

Yes, there is a bit of a gap between when Jesus was supposed to have lived and the oldest documents about his life. But that gap is only a hundred years. Compared to any other historical figure until relatively recently, Jesus has the most evidence.

But there are no first person accounts of Jesus, and many of the events mentioned in the NT are inaccurate or wrong.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I am disappointed that CNN is promoting their TV docu-drama, Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery as a documentary. CNN as a responsible source of trustworthy news should be careful to be academically accurate in his portrayal of Jesus as if he were historically verifiable person. This series is a blatant pandering to the fundamentalist Christians and is no more truthful than a Sunday morning ministry TV program. I challenge CNN to research the academic treatment of the gospels and epistles and consider the academically historical possibility that Jesus was not a real individual. He is more likely a myth and a composite of several folk heroes of his time at the end of the first century. Eventually, he was deified in the fifth century by the Nicene Council assembled by Emperor Constantine to incorporate the growing Christian movement into the Roman Empire. In particular, refer to the book Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth by Burton L. Mack (copyrighted in 1995 and published by HarperCollins, NY, NY). Dr. Mack is Professor Emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. What Dr. Mack’s book explores is the source of the Scriptures of the New Testament. Then he carefully analyzes the chronology of events in the Bible using verifiable references. Dr. Mack is one of many academic historians who dispute the verifiability of the stories of the New Testament. Among his findings are:


· Paul of Tarsus wrote his epistles 12 years after the time of [1] Pilate when the crucifixion of Jesus allegedly occurred in Jerusalem. Paul had been exiled from Jerusalem is a religious radical by the Temple priests. Paul may have written his Epistles, in Greek, from a scriptorium in Ephesus or Corinth on the Aegean Sea about 200 miles from Jerusalem. He then sent copies of his epistles to Greek speaking Jewish congregations in the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. Paul's Jesus could have been anyone of a number of other crucified victims of the Romans in Achaea (Greece) or any part of the Roman Empire.


· The first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, about 60 years after the time of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus of Galilee. This first Gospel and all subsequent Gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking Jewish scribes. Jesus from Galilee spoke Aramaic. Whatever Jesus may have said in Galilee in Aramaic early in the first century was somehow transcribed in Greek 60 years later. The Gospels were the transcriptions of oral traditions about a martyred Jewish rabbi that were ancient at the time they were written. These stories were not documented by any other Roman or Greek historians or chroniclers of the time. Almost nothing in the Gospels is historically accurate by the standards of academic historians.


· The Acts of the Apostles scripture was written at the very end of the first century or about 85 years after the crucifixion and about 40 years after the death of Paul of Tarsus. Given that a lifespan in that era was about 40 years, probably no one from the time of Paul of Tarsus was alive to recount Paul’s activities. Paul's travels to spread his messages throughout the Roman Empire were likely fabrications to revive the legend of Jesus. Without this scriptural revival, the legend of Jesus would have been lost to antiquity.


· The New Testament books were not organized in accordance with the time they were written. They were organized as if they were a history of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark although Matthew precedes Mark in the sequence of the Gospels. Because Matthew includes the story of the birth of Jesus, it was given prominence. All of the Gospels were poetically contrived late in the first century over 80 years after the time Jesus. The Epistles were written by Paul of Tarsus at least 10 years before the Gospels were written but were placed after the Gospels in the organization of the New Testament in the fifth century because the Epistles were primarily about the death of Jesus. Paul’s Epistles were about the martyrdom of Jesus and the theological meaning of his death as envisioned by Paul. Although Paul’s portrayal of Jesus preceded the Gospels, neither Paul nor his themes from his Epistles are mentioned in the Gospels. The scribes of the Gospels apparently did not know Paul or his Epistles.


Given the life long time gaps and the language barriers that intervened between the time that Jesus preached in Galilee and the time the Scriptures were written, the New Testament is not a historical document but a poetical legend. No independent Roman or Greek historians of the first century wrote any validation of the stories of the New Testament.


In summary, your new series about Jesus belongs with the Sunday morning ministry shows. To portray your series on Jesus as a documentary is a gross misrepresentation of academically historical truth. To be honest, you should qualify your series as a theological review and not as a documentary. I would also challenge CNN to produce a critical review of the New Testament from an academically accurate perspective for the growing number of "nones" in our nation that reject the unfounded dogma of Christianity.


Arthur F. Garcia, Jr., author of A Skeptic’s God: The Irrelevance of Religion in a Modern World

[1]

Even when I was a muslims I found jesus to be hard to believe in. There was just nothing that seemed to actually point to hard evidence for the man actually existing.

But this is only if you take the Gospel writers at their word. For all we know, the Jesus figure could have lived 100 years prior to when we think.

A whole other thing is that we have plenty of information of other characters that put the idea that jesus has more information behind him than anyone else in the children's fiction category.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

But there are no first person accounts of Jesus, and many of the events mentioned in the NT are inaccurate or wrong.

I would think that would be enough to at the very least call his existence into question rather than parade the man around as one of the most well attested figures in history.

 

[james bond]

CNN was founded by leftist Ted Turner, so It's a tool of the leftist liberals. Better Christian documentaries can be watched on the History Channel.

Time-Warner owns Turner Broadcasting companies including CNN (founded by Ted Turner), CW tv network, what's left of Warner Bros, DC comics, 10% of hulu, AOL, Time Warner cable, and more. It was the world's largest media conglomerate at one time, but not anymore. AT&T recently bought Time-Warner, so it may be able to improve CNN.

EDIT: AT&T is headquartered in Dallas, TX (not the usual media conglomerate of New York City) at Whitacre Tower building. I have been there several times when it was SBC. I see change coming.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think so! Jesus is "well-documented" ONLY in the New Testament, and nowhere else. On that view, Jesus is no better documented than Frodo Baggins.

There was a sizable movement that appeared around about the time of Jesus and rapidly grew after that which seems to suggest it was built around a real person.

Also if he was a pure fabrication, why do the Gospel writers have to make such convoluted attempts to fit him into OT prophecy? They could simply have invented someone who actually did fit OT prophecy straight off the bat.

'Prophets' were ten a penny back then, it is much more fantastical to think that someone made him up out of thin air yet managed to create a movement among his (near) contemporaries. Also, the anti-Christian Romans never doubted his existence and they would have had access to their own records on things such as executions.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Also if he was a pure fabrication, why do the Gospel writers have to make such convoluted attempts to fit him into OT prophecy? They could simply have invented someone who actually did fit OT prophecy straight off the bat.

I have a theory.

The need to fit him into prophecy didn't arise until his 'deification' at Nicea a couple of generations later. Paul's 'jesus' was a spiritual thing, he doesn't speak of him as a physical man at any point that I can recall. The Gospels seem to be several attempts at a sort of fanfic based on the preexisting epistles, that as good fanfic tends to, takes several creative liberties.

Every good hero needs a backstory after all.

 

[Muffled]

I believe things are only myth if they are written about hundreds of years after the events and the sources are not reliable witnesses. The Bible has reliable witnesses who wrote in their lifetimes.

 

[Muffled]

My hunch is Jesus was like Elvis -- a historical figure around which legends and myths grew up.

I believe that can happen. The Gnostic writings are a prime example.

 

[pearl]

The first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, about 60 years after the time of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus of Galilee. This first Gospel and all subsequent Gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking Jewish scribes. Jesus from Galilee spoke Aramaic. Whatever Jesus may have said in Galilee in Aramaic early in the first century was somehow transcribed in Greek 60 years later. The Gospels were the transcriptions of oral traditions about a martyred Jewish rabbi that were ancient at the time they were written. These stories were not documented by any other Roman or Greek historians or chroniclers of the time. Almost nothing in the Gospels is historically accurate by the standards of academic historians.

There is no way to bring 'history' to the present, the best that can be offered is a probable hypothesis in a reconstruction.
Before anything was written, by Paul or the evangelists, there existed a believing community. Scripture took shape within the traditions of faith of Israel and the early Church. The purpose of the written Gospels as stated in John, 'so that you may have faith,,,' was not to provide a chronological history nor a biography of the life of Jesus. Yes, it is now accepted that Mk was the first gospel because of the discovery of two sources used by Mt and Lk, that of "Q" and Mk.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).

 

[Valjean]

I believe things are only myth if they are written about hundreds of years after the events and the sources are not reliable witnesses. The Bible has reliable witnesses who wrote in their lifetimes.

No, there's not a single eyewitness account of Jesus. The whole mythology is based on hearsay.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am disappointed that CNN is promoting their TV docu-drama, Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery as a documentary. CNN as a responsible source of trustworthy news should be careful to be academically accurate in his portrayal of Jesus as if he were historically verifiable person. This series is a blatant pandering to the fundamentalist Christians and is no more truthful than a Sunday morning ministry TV program. I challenge CNN to research the academic treatment of the gospels and epistles and consider the academically historical possibility that Jesus was not a real individual. He is more likely a myth and a composite of several folk heroes of his time at the end of the first century. Eventually, he was deified in the fifth century by the Nicene Council assembled by Emperor Constantine to incorporate the growing Christian movement into the Roman Empire. In particular, refer to the book Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth by Burton L. Mack (copyrighted in 1995 and published by HarperCollins, NY, NY). Dr. Mack is Professor Emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. What Dr. Mack’s book explores is the source of the Scriptures of the New Testament. Then he carefully analyzes the chronology of events in the Bible using verifiable references. Dr. Mack is one of many academic historians who dispute the verifiability of the stories of the New Testament. Among his findings are:


· Paul of Tarsus wrote his epistles 12 years after the time of [1] Pilate when the crucifixion of Jesus allegedly occurred in Jerusalem. Paul had been exiled from Jerusalem is a religious radical by the Temple priests. Paul may have written his Epistles, in Greek, from a scriptorium in Ephesus or Corinth on the Aegean Sea about 200 miles from Jerusalem. He then sent copies of his epistles to Greek speaking Jewish congregations in the vicinity of the Aegean Sea. Paul's Jesus could have been anyone of a number of other crucified victims of the Romans in Achaea (Greece) or any part of the Roman Empire.


· The first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, about 60 years after the time of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus of Galilee. This first Gospel and all subsequent Gospels were written in Greek by Greek speaking Jewish scribes. Jesus from Galilee spoke Aramaic. Whatever Jesus may have said in Galilee in Aramaic early in the first century was somehow transcribed in Greek 60 years later. The Gospels were the transcriptions of oral traditions about a martyred Jewish rabbi that were ancient at the time they were written. These stories were not documented by any other Roman or Greek historians or chroniclers of the time. Almost nothing in the Gospels is historically accurate by the standards of academic historians.


· The Acts of the Apostles scripture was written at the very end of the first century or about 85 years after the crucifixion and about 40 years after the death of Paul of Tarsus. Given that a lifespan in that era was about 40 years, probably no one from the time of Paul of Tarsus was alive to recount Paul’s activities. Paul's travels to spread his messages throughout the Roman Empire were likely fabrications to revive the legend of Jesus. Without this scriptural revival, the legend of Jesus would have been lost to antiquity.


· The New Testament books were not organized in accordance with the time they were written. They were organized as if they were a history of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark although Matthew precedes Mark in the sequence of the Gospels. Because Matthew includes the story of the birth of Jesus, it was given prominence. All of the Gospels were poetically contrived late in the first century over 80 years after the time Jesus. The Epistles were written by Paul of Tarsus at least 10 years before the Gospels were written but were placed after the Gospels in the organization of the New Testament in the fifth century because the Epistles were primarily about the death of Jesus. Paul’s Epistles were about the martyrdom of Jesus and the theological meaning of his death as envisioned by Paul. Although Paul’s portrayal of Jesus preceded the Gospels, neither Paul nor his themes from his Epistles are mentioned in the Gospels. The scribes of the Gospels apparently did not know Paul or his Epistles.


Given the life long time gaps and the language barriers that intervened between the time that Jesus preached in Galilee and the time the Scriptures were written, the New Testament is not a historical document but a poetical legend. No independent Roman or Greek historians of the first century wrote any validation of the stories of the New Testament.


In summary, your new series about Jesus belongs with the Sunday morning ministry shows. To portray your series on Jesus as a documentary is a gross misrepresentation of academically historical truth. To be honest, you should qualify your series as a theological review and not as a documentary. I would also challenge CNN to produce a critical review of the New Testament from an academically accurate perspective for the growing number of "nones" in our nation that reject the unfounded dogma of Christianity.


Arthur F. Garcia, Jr., author of A Skeptic’s God: The Irrelevance of Religion in a Modern World

[1]

According to Wikipedia's entry on the historicity of Jesus (did Jesus exist?):

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

Put another way, only a fringe minority of religion and history scholars deny Jesus existed. I would also question your late dates for the gospel records, but that has been thoroughly documented elsewhere.

 

[Valjean]

I daresay the majority of Norse, Pagan scholars believed in Odin's existence, as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There was a sizable movement that appeared around about the time of Jesus and rapidly grew after that which seems to suggest it was built around a real person.

Also if he was a pure fabrication, why do the Gospel writers have to make such convoluted attempts to fit him into OT prophecy? They could simply have invented someone who actually did fit OT prophecy straight off the bat.

'Prophets' were ten a penny back then, it is much more fantastical to think that someone made him up out of thin air yet managed to create a movement among his (near) contemporaries. Also, the anti-Christian Romans never doubted his existence and they would have had access to their own records on things such as executions.

To be honest, I do not think the phrase "sizeable movement" is really accurate around the time of Jesus, though there was certainly some growth in the movement after his death (by the way, I do accept the existence of Jesus the man). I am aware of the extra-biblical references (Tacitus and Josephus, the latter twice, one quite convincing, the other -- the testimonium Flavianum -- less so).

What I also think, however, is that the story of Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Messiah or "the Annointed One" are largely fabricated by dressing up Jesus the man in a lot of clothes that he almost certainly never wore.

 

[Valjean]

To be honest, I do not think the phrase "sizeable movement" is really accurate around the time of Jesus, though there was certainly some growth in the movement after his death (by the way, I do accept the existence of Jesus the man). I am aware of the extra-biblical references (Tacitus and Josephus, the latter twice, one quite convincing, the other -- the testimonium Flavianum -- less so).

What I also think, however, is that the story of Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Messiah or "the Annointed One" are largely fabricated by dressing up Jesus the man in a lot of clothes that he almost certainly never wore.

There are no first-person accounts of Jesus. Both Tacitus and Josephus wrote several generations after Jesus' purported crucifixion. They wrote of Christians and their mythology, not as witnesses to Christ and his ordeals.

 

[Searching1981]

Well, since everyone is arguing among themselves let me ask you some questions; I didn't read your whole post.

1) It seems you read one book by someone you admire because he is a professor, did you go to college, did you ever participate in the research process? I was an Econ Stats Major at Columbia University we get first hand experience in research. I worked in research afterward. From there I was trained to be skeptical and question methodology.

2) What is the danger in Jesus Christ existing, why wipe his presence out from Existence? Is it tempting for you to worship him if existed so you have to make him not exist? Is it possible for your mind reconcile he did exist but you do not want to worship him? Would that be more authentic?

3) This is going to sound way out there but I pose it. Are you aware of telepathy? This is way out there, I know but so many people have it I wonder do you live an isolated life? That's why the Amazing Randi took down his challenge.

Thanks.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

Errr. I'm a Norse pagan, so I don't have a horse in this race, but historically speaking Jesus may be the single most well-documented person to ever live. There is more(and closer in time) about Jesus than there are Greek philosophers, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. The question is not "did Jesus exist", it is "was he of divine origin". Clearly for me the answer to the latter is an emphatic "no".

Yes, there is a bit of a gap between when Jesus was supposed to have lived and the oldest documents about his life. But that gap is only a hundred years. Compared to any other historical figure until relatively recently, Jesus has the most evidence.

I think the question is what is the quality of the documentation, not the quantity.

 

[Kenny]

While these are valid points, they fall apart when you look into the things the NT gets right. The names found in the NT show up almost one for one based on their popularity of the era(which we know thanks to Roman census information). There's too much detail for it to be whole-cloth fabricated, because there's no way the writers of the NT would've had access to the information taken by the Roman government. Either the NT is mostly accurate(when one ignores the supernatural) or it is the most impressive coincidence possible that they'd get names, practices and other minutiae right.

Again, there is(rightly) no debate on whether Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates so on and so forth existed, despite the fact we have far, far less to go on, and what we do have was written significantly later.

Once more, not a Christian. I just dislike it when people try to distort the historical record to fit their agenda. Which is, again, why I also argue against Jesus being divine. Historical record just doesn't back it up(and common sense simply doesn't allow it). There was a Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, who was crucified and he either died on the cross or he went unconscious and his breathing, pulse and such were too low to be detected by the people of the era. Then when he came to, it would seem like he rose from the dead. And without our modern ability to detect even shallow signs of life, to the people of that time would have no way to know he didn't.

As a Christian.... thank you!

 

[Valjean]

Well, since everyone is arguing among themselves let me ask you some questions; I didn't read your whole post.
2) What is the danger in Jesus Christ existing, why wipe his presence out from Existence? Is it tempting for you to worship him if existed so you have to make him not exist? Is it possible for your mind reconcile he did exist but you do not want to worship him? Would that be more authentic?

What is the danger of the Easter Bunny existing? Why wipe its presence out?
We're not discussing utility here, the OP is about veracity.

3) This is going to sound way out there but I pose it. Are you aware of telepathy? This is way out there, I know but so many people have it I wonder do you live an isolated life? That's why the Amazing Randi took down his challenge.
Thanks.

The challenge ended because people decided there were better uses for a million dollars than sitting in an escrow account for decades. Several thousand people had challenged it, but none had succeeded. The point had been made.
I'm assuming the 'telepathy' incident you mentioned was the April Fools stunt Randi pulled at MIT in 2008, when he claimed someone had won the prize.

 

[Searching1981]

What is the danger of the Easter Bunny existing? Why wipe its presence out?
We're not discussing utility here, the OP is about veracity.

The challenge ended because people decided there were better uses for a million dollars than sitting in an escrow account for decades. Several thousand people had challenged it, but none had succeeded. The point had been made.
I'm assuming the 'telepathy' incident you mentioned was the April Fools stunt Randi pulled at MIT in 2008, when he claimed someone had won the prize.

Forgive me, there is nothing at stake for me in this discussion but did you go to College? No Randi pulled it down because many challengers, including myself, came forward who had telepathy; Randi is not an honest man. But, hey, you don't have to believe in telepathy I just know many people have it. We've only had it on Earth since 2012, people before had it but very few. Do you live an isolated life? So many miracles going on I always wonder about this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are no first-person accounts of Jesus. Both Tacitus and Josephus wrote several generations after Jesus' purported crucifixion. They wrote of Christians and their mythology, not as witnesses to Christ and his ordeals.

I did not say otherwise. Still, there are no first-person accounts of many people we believe to have existed. But that such stories could survive several generations at a time when most history was transmitted orally wouldn't be very surprising. It is now, of course, because with modern aids, most of us can't remember our own phone number without the actual help of the phone.

And I spoke of the likely existence of Jesus the person (Josephus more important reference -- not the Testimonium Flavianum) speaks of him only in reference to his brother James, also of Joseph -- all extremely common names at the time, and that is the reason for his mention of all of them, including the further characterization of "who some call Christ." That's why so many scholars are prepared to accept that passage more than some of the bumpf in the Testimonium. Josephus is, after all, known to be a very careful historian, and probably the best historian of his time.

I did, nowever, speak of "witness to Christ and his ordeals." That is part of what I suggested got wrapped around him after the fact through the usual processes of heroes accreting stories and magical events through retelling.