The Nonsense of the Christ Myth Theory

Today's world of the Internet and countless social media sites exposes us to contact with a large number of individuals who hold radical, and oftentimes, ridiculous views. There are vocal minorities who breathlessly proclaim the Holocaust never happened, the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned by our own government and a myriad of other conspiracy theories.

Given the prevalence of such ridiculous claims in our highly-diverse society, it only seems natural many religious despisers are professing their own radical theory- Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

These individuals, often referred to as mythicists, boldly argue the man over two billion Christians worship worldwide never walked the earth at all-- as a man, preacher or the Son of God. While their presence is quite prevalent on certain Internet comment sections and poorly-written blogs, their views are virtually non-existent among experts.

As critical Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote on the Huffington Post in 2012, "... of the hundreds -- thousands? -- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. 

Scholar R Joseph Hoffmann, who is not a Christian, also shared his views on the subject in his blog in 2012- "For those of you not paying attention, the New Atheism has a new postulate: Not only does God not exist but Jesus didn't exist either. It is a theory that zips past Planet America every fifty years or so, like a comet, then fades away until a new generation of nutters tries to resuscitate it. Lucky us: We are living at the right time. (sarcasm)."

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology has also dismissed the claims of mythicists. In am email to me, Hurtado said: "The so-called 'mythicist' view has appeared at various times over the last couple of centuries, typically asserted by people without standing in the field of Christian origins, and in each case has been patiently refuted by competent scholars.  In the current situation, there is no indication of any swing among scholars toward a 'mythicist' perspective." 

"Indeed, among scholars in Christian origins, whether they be of Christian, Jewish, or 'secular' backgrounds and dispositions, Jesus of Nazareth is taken as a real historical figure, however much scholars may debate and differ over specifics,"Hurtado added.

In recent years, mythicism has seen a slight increase in popularity, in part because some people believe everything they read on the Internet- whether it is written by a religious scholar, or a village atheist writing on a random blog. One must always consider the source when taking in new information. After all, bias plays a major role in many blogs. 

 A number of proponents of mythicist views today fail to realize that many of the same claims they are making have been shot down by experts for well over 100 years. 

Since virtually all scholars, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or secular,do not question the existence of Jesus (at least as a man)), why do these skeptics continue to claim He did not?

These (typically) hostile naysayers have countless theories to advance their overall conclusion, but two of their most common ones are: 1. Jesus was never mentioned by any Roman sources of his day and would have been if he had walked the planet 2. The Jesus story is a story Jews at that time would have WANTED to make up. 

Neither argument carries weight among those with backgrounds in the relevant fields of study and it is easy to see why. 

As Ehrman wrote, "It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate (were not mentioned during their lifetimes, but after their deaths).

The Romans in Jewish Palestine kept records of almost nothing during those days. Why would they keep records of a poor, Jewish preacher preaching in rural areas such as Galilee? The Roman Empire was a highly-diverse area, filled with many different religious leaders, faiths and nationalist movements. It is hard to see why Roman leaders would have cared to take notes on someone they probably assumed, prior to the Resurrection, was just another Jewish man whose followers claimed to be the messiah. The ancient world had plenty of other Jewish men who claimed to be the messiah.

Allow me to provide another example. Many thousands of Cherokee, Creek and members of other Native American tribes were tragically forced to walk on the Trail of Tears to what was designated as "Indian Territory." 

Of the thousands of men, women and children who were made to take part in this inhumane experience, how many were mentioned by name by American soldiers? Does that mean that almost none of these Native Americans actually existed?  To make such a comment would be absurd.

It simply means those who documented the journey didn't find it important for their purposes to report much on those forced to march westward. The same logic should be applied to Roman leaders, who would almost certainly see no reason to write about a Jewish religious leader they did not believe in. They

The same can be said about many other Native Americans driven from their native lands, killed in battle or sold into slavery. Just because few of these men, women and children were mentioned by name by those writing history does not mean they never lived. 

Additionally, Jesus is mentioned in two separate passages by Flavius Josephus in his "Antiquities of the Jews" in 93 AD. It is telling that such a prominent historian would mention Jesus and once mention his brother, James. Josephus was a pious Jew who had no reason to mention Jesus other than because his sources told him about him.

As for the latter mythicist claim, all I can do is try not to laugh. The earliest Christians proclaimed their messiah, Jesus, had been crucified and raised from the dead. And who did he appear to? Not prominent Roman officials, the Pharisees or Sadducees, or any of the politically-elite members of society. Instead, Jesus appeared to His disciples and later, to Paul of Tarsus. 

Call me crazy, but I would think that anyone seeking to make up claims of a resurrected Son of God would opt to have Jesus appear to prominent members of society such as Pialte or the Jewish elite instead of his friends, who like most Jews at that time, were likely illiterate or semi-literate. 

Mythicists fail to realize the significance of this claim- Jesus had not saved the day by overthrowing his enemies or freeing his people from oppressors, but had been crucified by the Romans. As scholar, John Dominic Crossan has pointed out, crucifixion was a slow and excruciating death reserved for the most heinous of criminals, such as enemies of the Roman State, slaves and pirates. 

Any Jewish person who was going to "invent" a messianic figure would have invented one who delivered his people from oppression. It defies logic to argue the Jews would have made up a messiah who had failed to even save his own people. 

To admit someone had been crucified would also be admitting they were defeated by their enemies and had been found guilty by the Roman leaders. And it is also quite important to note there is no record of ANY Jewish  messiah of this type, prior to Jesus who was crucified by his enemies. 

To the disciples, however, Jesus had not only met this fate, but was raised from the dead on the third day. Their experiences of the Resurrection confirmed this was indeed God's messiah.

There are a number of other problems with mythicist views. Our earliest Christian source, Paul of Tarsus, became a Christian within only a few years of Jesus' crucifixion. Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh, but he personally knew at least two people who certainly did.

In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul tells us he met with Cephas, also known as Simon Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus. It seems hard to understand how Paul would "not know" if Jesus existed- he knew his own brother and his closest disciple! 

Mythicist attempts to explain that this "brother" was not really meant to mean a biological brother have been shot down by even highly-skeptical Christians, Jewish and secular scholars. Liberal Christian scholar and Professor James McGrath has noted that other meanings for the word "brother" in the passage make no sense, given its context.

Paul noted in his letter to the Galatians that he later met with James, Cephas and John, who he referred to as the pillars" of the early movement.

Moreover,  is important to remember mythicists are typically either people who despise Christianity or at least receive their information from those who despise it. Mythicist Raphael Lataster showcased his profound bias when he recently argued that Christians should not be involved in deciding whether Jesus existed. 

To claim all Christians, including scholars are incapable of making this decisionwhen presented with historical evidence shows a profound atheist bias. It is certainly hard to take such an ignorant man seriously. 

Religious despisers are entitled to their opinions, but when they make the claim that Jesus never existed, while clinging to weak arguments and outdated scholarship, they come across as ignorant and foolish. 

As well-known scholar, EP Sanders has said, "The burden of proof is on whomever is making an argument."

The mythicists have their arguments, but they certainly have not met that burden. Unless they can come up with some convincing evidence, it is hard to take them seriously.


NOTES: 
- Atheists and mythicists should not be considered the same. Many atheists, including the aforementioned Hoffman, certainly believe Jesus existed. Moreover, there are plenty of atheists who have no interest in the subject either way. 

- Ehrman has written a book, "Did Jesus Exist?" providing a detailed explanation of the evidence for the historical Jesus of Nazareth. 

- As a theologically moderate Christian, I believe in a divine Jesus, but I also believe when can better understand Jesus and his earliest followers by learning about the world he lived in.

- James McGrath and Daniel Gullota (an atheist who has been vocal in his opposition to mythicists) both run blogs that address the topic at great length. To learn more about their views,  a simple Google search will suffice. 

Pontius Pilate Deserves No Sympathy

Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross. Christians have always known this. However, due to a failure to look at the big picture when reading the accounts in the New Testament Gospels, some Christians are reluctant to place much blame on the merciless leader.

As we all know, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the authorities in Jerusalem. These authorities were the ones who arrested Jesus. This makes sense historically, as the authorities, not Pilate, would be responsible for handling Jewish matters such as this.

High priest, Joseph Caiaphas and others decided Jesus had to be executed and brought him to Pilate.
All four canonical Gospels tell us that Pilate gave a crowd of Jews the opportunity to choose whether or not to crucify Jesus.

The Jews in the crowd loudly proclaimed to Pilate that Jesus should be crucified. In the Gospel of John, Pilate stated that he found no fault in Jesus. Despite this, he gave into the demands of the crowd and condemned Jesus to his bloody fate.

Since the actions of Caiaphas and Judas brought Jesus to Pilate and Pilate initially opted not to execute Jesus, some Christians today have argued that Pilate had "no choice" in the matter. To make their case, they have acknowledged that Pilate was a "coward," but argued that the two previously- mentioned Jewish men deserve much more blame.

To be perfectly blunt, that is a ridiculous argument. The prefect ultimately DID sentence Jesus to death on the cross. While I would not disagree Caiaphas was the worst of the three since he was so eager to kill Jesus, Pilate was unbelievably cruel to kill anyone in that fashion.

Had Pilate simply wanted to punish Jesus and stop Him from creating a major disturbance at Passover, he could have thrown Jesus in jail for a while instead. Pilate had many soldiers at his disposal, so if angry Jews protested the decision to simply imprison Jesus, Pilate could have used them to silence the dissenters. 

So, what does this tell us? Is it possible Jesus' claims of God's kingdom and power angered the Roman elites as well and this also led the prefect to agree to the death penalty? After all, there is the possibility the talk of such a kingdom was viewed as a insult to someone who was the current ruler. We cannot know for sure.

This is not to say the Gospels are wrong when they said Pilate was reluctant to kill him initially. My argument is that Pilate ultimately did make the decision to give Jesus the most horrific punishment known to man, despite the fact Jesus had done nothing wrong. There is no need to feel sorry for him or cut him slack, just because Jewish elites were the ones who initially wanted him to die. 

The point is, Pilate was a violent man who actually put a LOT of people to death. Here are just two examples of Pilate's violent side:

The famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus wrote in his Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2 that Pilate spent money from the Jewish Temple to build an aqueduct. Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them and, when Jews again protested his actions he gave the signal for his soldiers to randomly attack, beat and kill – in an attempt to silence Jewish petitions.

Additionally, the ancient Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria harshly criticized Pilate, writing that the prefect feared of being reported to his superior, Emperor Tiberius, for "...the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries...the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty (On the Embassy of Gauis, Book XXXVIII).

The point is that Pilate was not a man who made a cowardly decision after dealing with demands from a Jewish crowd and some Jewish leaders... He was a brutal man who put large numbers of people to death.

I don't believe, even for a second, that Pilate lost any sleep over the matter. Since he had killed many others, he probably decided killing an innocent man was no big deal, even though he didn't personally see any reason for a death sentence. As mentioned before, there is also the possibility some of Jesus' teachings of God's kingdom did not sit well with the an authoritarian leader like Pilate. 

Though we as Christians believe Jesus had to die for us, Pilate's cruelty against an innocent man was still hard to fathom. The Roman prefect should be remembered for what he was. To portray him otherwise is to miss the overall point- He put Jesus to death.

The Purpose of this Blog (Part Two)

My belief is that Christians should certainly study the early history of their faith. The information is easily available, so why wouldn't we want to learn more about it? 

When Christians make claims about the history of our faith that stand in contrast to what happened historically, it makes us look bad. As followers of Christianity, we should know more about our faith than anyone! 

It is my belief that history matters and we should look into our history to find out what happened in the past. Though some do not care how historical figures from the past are depicted, I personally believe men and women deserve to be remembered for who they truly were while they were alive. 

Secondly, if we do not understand history, this false information can have bad consequences for the future.

Take my earlier example of Mary Magdalene. She was not a prostitute, as many of my fellow Christians still believe, but was instead a devout follower of Jesus. Why should a woman who so dearly loved Jesus deserve to be thought of in a way that is not historically accurate? 

This portrayal of Mary undoubtedly hurt Christian women, as a figure who could otherwise be thought of as a role model and biblical hero was portrayed in a more negative light. To be sure, many of those who make the claim Mary was a prostitute do acknowledge that through Jesus' forgiveness, she became a good woman and devoted follower. 

However, this portrayal of Mary could surely come across as sexist.

Additionally, we have to remember the major consequences of some other misunderstandings by past Christians. 

The Bible does tell us that Jesus was betrayed by one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was Jewish. The high priest who wanted Jesus executed, Joseph Caiaphas, was also a Jewish man. Additionally, Jews in the crowd in front of Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate loudly proclaimed they wanted Jesus crucified.

While I do not at all doubt these men wanted Jesus dead, the stories have historically led some Christians to become furious at Jews. In today's world, Christians are often very supportive of Jews and Israel, but this was not the case throughout many parts of world history . 

Some early Christians despised Jews in part because the actions of these Jewish men lead to the brutal crucifixion of their beloved messiah. To be sure, plenty of Christians had no problems with Jews.

However, these stories have been used historically by both Christians and non-Christians as justification for Antisemitism. Though many of the Nazis despised Christianity and the religious leaders in the Church, some of them nevertheless used stories such as these to stir up hatred toward the Jewish people. This political approach was utilized to help convince German Christians that Jews had always been bad people.

It should also be noted that not only was Jesus himself a Jewish man, but all of his disciples were as well. Most of his other followers prior to his deaht also appeared to be Jews. Knowing this will help Christians to realize that while some Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, others were his biggest supporters. There is no reason to hold anger toward Jews as a group.

Additionally, while Judas and Caiaphas' actions led Jesus to Pilate, the Roman prefect himself was the one who ultimately sentenced Jesus to death. Even today, some Christians defend Pilate and say he did not have a choice in the matter.

The problem is that even if Pilate personally believed Jesus did not deserve to be crucified, he ultimately DID sentence Jesus to death on the cross. Had Pilate simply wanted to punish Jesus and stop Him from creating a major disturbance at Passover, he could have thrown Jesus in jail for a while instead. 

Pilate had many soldiers at his disposal, so if angry Jews protested the decision to simply imprison Jesus, Pilate could have used them to silence the dissenters. The writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and others have shown that Pilate was often a cruel man who had crucified many people during his time in power.

So, even though some Jewish men were eager to have Jesus executed, Pilate ultimately made the final decision to kill Jesus in the most inhumane fashion known to man. He could have stopped it, but handed Jesus over to die on the cross.

Had Christians realized this and held Pilate equally or more responsible than the other men, less people would have grown angry with Jews, since Pilate was not a Jew. This is a major example of how history can affect our future.

The Purpose of this Blog (Part One)

There can be no doubt that many of those who run Christian blogs do so because they want to share their personal stories of faith with others. Other bloggers want to tell their readers what they believe the Christian view on various political topics actually is.

I created this blog a few weeks ago for a different reason- many Christians actually know very little about the early history of their faith.

 I became increasingly interested in early Christianity toward the end of 2012 and began really doing research into the subject in 2013. I had always loved history, so learning about the history of my religion only seemed natural.

However, I was surprised to discover that many things Christians (and non-Christians) had heard and said about the faith were either untrue or greatly exaggerated.

Allow me to explain. As I wrote in previous posts, it is a common misconception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute who repented with Jesus' forgiveness. Evidence from the Bible itself shows that Mary was NOT a prostitute.

Another common claim made by Christians and non-Christians is that the Roman Emperor Constantine I made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is a bogus claim.

Constantine ordered religious tolerance toward Christians and members of all other religions with the passage of the Edict of Milan in the year 313. Constantine would go on by the year 324 AD to openly "favor" Christianity, but he never made Christianity the official religion. He simply did things that showed his preference for the Christian God

Christianity would not be made the official religion until 380 by the corrupt Emperor Theodosius. This happened over 40 years after Constantine's death. To say Constantine essentially forced everyone to become Christians is simply ridiculous.

Many other examples of these misconceptions can be found in my previous blog posts. I will address other misconceptions in future posts as well.

Why do these types of things matter? I will explain in the next post.

Jesus' siblings- the Catholic vs. Protestant Debate (Part Two)

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that Jesus had no actual siblings. Given the evidence I mentioned in the previous post, how did they arrive at this conclusion?

It is important to realize that many Catholics hold to the doctrine of the "assumption of the virgin." To these Catholics, Mary was not only a virgin when she had Jesus, but remained one her entire life. When her life ended, she was taken to Heaven instead of dying.

Many Protestants have pointed out the Bible only mentions Mary being a virgin when she had Jesus and not for her entire life. In fact, there is no verse in the Bible that indicates Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, a well-known New Testament scholar, shared two of the traditional arguments Catholics have used to make their case.

 "In the older of the two views, the "brothers" of Jesus were the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This made them, in effect, Jesus' stepbrothers," Ehrman said.

It is possible Joseph had children from a previous marriage and that Joseph's previous wife had died or the two had gotten a divorce. But if ALL of his children were from the previous marriage, why are these children not mentioned in the Gospel stories that describe Mary and Joseph's trip to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth?

It seems hard to believe that both Matthew and Luke would have left out such a fascinating story at the beginning of their respective Gospels. Surely they would have found it noteworthy to share Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem with at least six children! That would have been quite an interesting scene.

Given the fact that Mary had Jesus at a very young age, I find it hard to believe she would not have any more kids during her life. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but obviously Jesus was divine and the others were not. The point of the birth narratives is Mary was a virgin when God chose her to have Jesus.

I think the much more likely scenario is that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary later gave birth to the other six (or more) siblings mentioned in Matthew and Mark's Gospels and these siblings were all younger than Jesus.

Another argument that was used to deny Jesus had siblings was used by the fourth-century church father, Jerome. Jerome was an ascetic, meaning he denied himself many pleasures, These pleasures included sex.

Since Jerome believed Christians should abstain from sex, the church father claimed that neither Mary nor Joseph had sex.

So who were these "brothers" of Jesus then? For Jerome and other Catholic thinkers, the brothers were actually cousins of Jesus.

Ehrman explains why that theory is problematic.

"The main problem with this view is that when the New Testament talks about Jesus' brothers, it uses the Greek word that literally refers to a male sibling. There is a different Greek word for cousin. This other word is not used of James and the others."

It should be noted that Catholics still hold James, the brother of Jesus in high respect. They simply do not view him as related to Jesus the way other Christians do. I have no problem with either of the two Catholic views on the subject, but do not believe they are historically accurate.

Since the Greek word for brother cannot be taken to mean cousin and since several different passages in the New Testament refer to Jesus' brother, or even all of his siblings, I see no reason to believe these brothers were cousins or even stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus. These were the earthly brothers and sisters of Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord.


NOTE: Dr. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He has some fascinating things to say about Early Christianity. Since he is not a Christian, I absolutely disagree with him on the subject of the Resurrection and divinity of Christ. However, he does make some great points at times about Early Christianity and his religious views do not mean he is any less qualified to address questions such as these.

Jesus' siblings- The Catholic vs. Protestant Debate (Part One)

Roman Catholics as a rule have long that Jesus Christ did not have any siblings. Protestants, on the other hand, typically claim the opposite.

Obviously, one of these groups has to be wrong and a look at our earliest available sources and the terminology of the New Testament should lead us to conclude He did in fact have siblings.

There are many reasons to conclude that Jesus had siblings, as these siblings are clearly mentioned in the Gospels in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:54-56. These passages reveal to us that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke each share a story about Jesus' mother and brothers coming to see Him.

Additionally, the apostle Paul indicates that he met with Cephas (Simon Peter) and James in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-20) within a few years of his conversion. In this passage, James is referred to as "the brother of the Lord."

While it is true Christians sometimes referred to each other as brothers and sisters, the meaning of the word is clear in Paul's epistle. Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord to distinguish him from Peter and the other apostles, who Paul notes were not in attendance. Since Peter and the other apostles were certainly "brothers" in the sense that they believed in Jesus, the word could not mean that only James was a believer in Jesus.

Therefore, Paul is referring to Jesus' actual brother, James, who was one of the "pillars" of the early church (Galatians, chapter 2).

Lastly, the historian Flavius Josephus almost certainly referred to James, the brother of Jesus. The historian noted in "Antiquities of the Jews" that James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ," and other men were wrongly put to death by stoning in 62 AD by the corrupt high priest, Ananus. The deaths of this group of men was met with anger and protest and Ananus was desposed of his position.

Based on this evidence, why would Catholics, or anyone for that matter, argue Jesus did not have siblings? Arguments against Jesus having siblings will be explored in the next post.

Constantine, the Gospels and Common Misconceptions (Part Two)

3. The practice of Holy Communion is extremely old

We all know about Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples, but apparently his early followers did not take long to begin the Holy Communion, also known as the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians  11:23-34, written around 55 A.D., Paul described how the Christians at Corinth were not practicing the meal correctly. Apparently, some of the Christians didn't wait for the others to get there before they started eating the bread and drinking the wine... Paul basically told them to eat at home before coming to the meal if they were hungry and couldn't wait. This shows the practice was already in place within 25 years of Jesus' death and could have been in place much earlier. Clearly, it was a tradition important to Christians from a very early time.


4. Roman persecution of Christians was typically inconsistent before the beginning of the fourth century.

While it is undoubtedly true Christians dealt with persecution, imprisonment, torture and even death from an early period, the scope of this persecution varied greatly depending on the emperor in charge. Some emperors were fairly tolerant of Christianity and various other faiths. Others, such as the infamous Nero, were extremely cruel toward Christians. Generally, there were not any state-sponsored persecutions of Christians until the early fourth century, when the Emperors Diocletian and Galerius launched bloody persecutions of Christians.

Sadly, a good number of Christian places of worship and scriptures were destroyed by the persecutors. Some Christians unfortunately met a bloody faith if they refused to give up their religion. Thankfully, the Edict of Milan ordered tolerance of all faiths in the Empire and Emperor Constantine himself would come to openly favor the religion (though he never made it the "official" religion, as many have argued.

As as a rule, Roman emperors were somewhat tolerant of Christians before Diocletian and Galerius launched their violent persecutions of the Empire's Christians. To say Christians fought widespread persecution from Romans from the earliest days until Constantine's legalization of the faith is simply wrong. Many Pagan intellectuals ridiculed Christians about their faith and many frowned upon Christianity, but the extent of actual persecution is often exaggerated by Christians today.

In summary, times were very tough for Christians under some Roman emperors, but others pretty much let them worship as they wished. Christians also experienced some scattered mob violence at the hands of Jews, but this has also been exaggerated.

NOTE: Roman emperors who showed tolerance to Christians and other non-pagan religious groups did not extend this tolerance out of the kindness of their hearts. Tolerating religious views was a way in which emperors could keep peace in the Roman Empire.