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.
