This topic contains 41 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
From my reading and study I think it is highly unlikely that Jesus existed as an actual person. I think Jesus, like most other god myths, is a syncretic creation that evolved from various political and religious influences. A person who articulates this well and has done a lifetime of research on this idea is D.M. Murdock or Acharya S a pen name she incorporated initially because of death threats she initially received from her writings.
In the YouTube video below you can hear an audio interview with her in which she talks about her latest research on Moses and an analysis of a small pre-Christian amulet that has the image of a crucified god on it. While much of the study of history is speculative, one can see patterns develop as you collect a large enough body of evidence. D.M. Murdock has done an excellent job of documenting and discovering a large body of evidence on the Christ myth and piecing together a very complex puzzle of how Christianity came to be. It is worth understanding, even if you don’t agree.
I set the video to start 15 minutes in since that is where the interview starts. The first 15 minutes of the host rambling is not really something I find very interesting.
Thanks Richard.
Anonymouswow!
AnonymousThe last few minutes of rambling is weird too. It always bothers me when people who do highly academic study laugh like Tom Cruise, it robs their cred. The subject of evolving religion is fascinating though. I would like to see this subject dealt with in TED terms (18 min) or RSA (illustrated).
I find these studies fascinating as well. I’ve read a lot on both sides. I’ve come to the still fluid conclusion that there was a man, a Jew, not named Jesus, who was a profound and radical teacher, who had followers, who’s political radicalism got him killed, but that truck loads of meanings and stories and myths and cultic ideas that were floating around at the time adhered to this story.
I think you may have a few candidates for this mystery teacher including John the Baptist, who we have external accounts of. We also have the Essene teacher of righteousness. D.M. Murdock points to Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who coined the term Logos and promoted metaphorical interpretations of the Old Testament. He was quite important to some of the early Christian church fathers.
What’s particularly interesting about John the Baptist is that his birthday is the Summer Solstice and Jesus’s birthday is the Winter Solstice. The saying, He must increase and I must decrease, can be seen as a solar reference to the length of the day in regards to solar deities. After the birth of Jesus the days would be increasing in length and after the birth of John the Baptist the days would be decreasing in length, hence Jesus would increase and John would decrease. Both were sun gods from different parts of the year. It was common to portray the Winter solstice god as a baby in a manger. We have a description of this pagan nativity service.
Since John’s ministry was cut short with his beheading it would be likely an alternative mythical structure would be constructed to sustain his teachings and these would be a symbolically re-incarnated John in the form of Jesus. To give Jesus even more legitimacy you would add other signs of deity including virgin birth, solar birthday, miracles, prophecies fulfilled, crucifixion, earthquakes, sun blotted out at his death (since Jesus was the Sun of god this would be a symbol of the death of the Sun) and you add all these various wisdom sayings that have their sources in other traditions that pre-date Jesus.
Since philosophy was largely described through myth it is not much of a leap to see the literalization taking place in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries with the ideas having the most political and financial backing winning out.
I agree Richard. I think we would be foolish to insist that we know the facts or can even uncover them. Any theories or archeology or comparative studies, etc., I welcome with interest and fascination. I connect this with my letting go of needing one story to be historically accurate or correct or dominant.
John Shelby Spong, in his book Jesus for the Non-Religious, has similar theories that Jesus as depicted by Paul existed only in a metaphysical plane separate from our own earthly existence and was never meant (by Paul) to be a human character. The theory goes on that there were other agendas within the early Christian church that did believe in an earthly human existence for Jesus and both views ended up having some representation in the body of writings that later were compiled into the bible. Of course, over time, the movement that had Jesus as an earthly human character won out and controlled the official orthodox interpretation that we all now know. Fascinating stuff however it turns out to be true.
Very interesting discussion but I’m finding it hard accepting it as a qualified historical analysis in contribution to the historical debate on Jesus. It seems to be dealing very much in conspiracy territory which my history lecturers always warned us about (she even entitled one of books with the term). To claim Jesus as a mythological character is a stretch. Not just because the majority of modern day scholarship would disagree with such a notion, but simply because the accounts of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, and the accounts attributing his existence from outside the Bible, are sources dated very close to his life. For something to qualify as mythological in history, there is a distinct time line between the events and the written record, as it is observed that it has to take at least a certain amount of time for myth to develop. This is what wiki has to say about the historical Jesus:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[5][6][7][8] biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to “almost universal assent” are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
This account coincides with what I was taught in my religious history study at university, pretty much all my lecturers and the authors of the books I studied agree that the historical character of Jesus was a real person, as was Muhammed and Buddha.
Still, she makes some very interesting observations, and it contributes greatly at least, to the debate on the divinity and ministry of Jesus and what exactly Christianity is. The fact is, a majority of the practices Christians use today, delved from Catholicism, were borrowed largely from European Paganism, everything from the use of incense and singing, to, as she referenced, the use of the cross and the doctrines of Hell etc. This was necessary to allow for smoother conversion process as many Pagans refused to give up their traditions. A lot of the early church writers did indeed borrow from aspects of other worldy religions in establishing their own theology. We also have to aware of the fact that the actual accounts of Jesus could very well have been edited over time to suite certain agendas so we can’t be 100 percent sure that what we read in there is the actual account of his life. Its such concepts that one has to keep in mind when studying this area and attempting to establish the clear picture of early Christianity.
I am more interested in the ideas themselves and while I was skeptical of D.M. Murdock because of her style of presentation at first, she has done a lot of documentation for her views. She is definitely a detail person and I like that when it comes to deciding what I think.
I’m also skeptical of people who use the expert card. It was experts that taught me all the abusive beliefs I grew up with. Many of them had multiple doctoral degrees and where published “experts” in Biblical studies. The consensus in Biblical studies is based on writings by people who clearly were making stuff up. So no view really has enough evidence to be suggested as actual history. There is a massive agenda within Biblical studies. There are scholars who have abandoned the idea of Biblical studies all together because of its essential myth basis.
When I have studied the claims of external evidence for Jesus there is none. Josephus is an interpolation or forgery probably by Eusebius. And Tacitus said the following…
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”.
This was A.D. 64 and he is basically reporting that there are such people as Christians and is simply reporting their belief in a Christus which means “annointed one”. He doesn’t say Jesus of Nazareth. This is not evidence that Jesus actually existed. Notice that he considered their beliefs to be a superstition and a hatred against mankind. So while he was reporting this, he didn’t consider it to be true. He was also born 25 years after the death of Jesus and was 7 at the time of the fire in Rome. He doesn’t give his source for this information so it is essentially hearsay.
Now even if we agree that Jesus existed and was crucified it still does nothing to establish his divinity or any of his miracles or claims that he is THE savior of the world. We have no independent observer that Jesus did anything claimed in the gospels. We have a lot of parallel claims of other divine beings doing the same or similar things. We have earlier examples of the same types of practices with different gods and goddesses. You would think that if Jesus was actually THE savior of the world we would have a little more than the mishmash of paltry evidence available today. You would think that accepting Jesus wouldn’t require all the mental gymnastics needed to make it true. You would think there might actually be a transformation unique to Christianity and Christians would heal people and transform society the way Jesus did.
It’s a great story, but a huge disappointment when it doesn’t produce what it claims.
I wouldn’t say referring to experts is a play, I was simply stating as the cited wikipedia extry states, that most modern day scholars of antiquity, that’s not just biblical scholars but general ancient historians devoted the 1st Century, agree that the person of Jesus did in fact exist. You can’t use your past experiences with qualified people (even though I empathize with your experiences on that count) to simply distrust an expert analysis especially when it comes to a general scholarly agreement.
You say they were “clearly making stuff up”. That’s quite an audacious to claim to make of any historical document and from what I’ve been taught of historical analysis, you cannot deal with absolutes when it comes to your own opinion, even if an opinion based on evidence (though the claim is very much lacking in evidence). You are making a lot of grand sweeping statements and you can’t just dismiss all biblical scholars because they believe in a specific religion. They may be biased but they still follow the rules of history and still have valid claims to contribute to the general discussion. You are letting your world views color what you see and you can’t let that happen. I believe personally believe in the story of Jesus and his crucifixion etc but I can’t prove that happened with certainty, it remains a solid topic of mass debate, but when it comes to his actual existence, then that’s another matter.
To state that the Josephus source is a full-on forgery is false. Modern day scholars, Jewish, Christians and secular would definitely agree that the source as we know it today has definitely been edited, but to state that the entire source has been tampered with doesn’t agree with the source analysis. I will cite the entire source and highlight where historians believe the interpolations exist:
About this time there lived a Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this not disappeared.
The areas not highlight collaborate with the kind of language Josphesus had used in various other sources. He was a Jew and obviously did not believe in the divinity of Christ so would never state the things I have highlighted. The other aspects of the source are however, mere observations of events which is what Josephus was recording and thus there is no reason to deny their authenticity.
Also, don’t you find it significant that Tacticus states that the Christians of his time, wayyyy before the Roman Empire became Christian, wayyy before Christianity became a privileged concept, all believed in a figure known as Christ, and that their entire belief system was based on this person? There was no agenda in creating this character and basing a belief system on him because there was no institution to do it and, more importantly, there was therefore no means to fabricate a story to this degree and spread it. These were heavily oppressed people who had absolutely nothing to gain by claiming the existence of this character, yet so many did at the time. That’s historical context you cannot ignore. Not to mention, he is talking with affirmation, that there was a person known as “Christ”, that loads of people are running around worshiping, despite the fact that he was executed under Pilate. He’s not saying the Christians believe this person existed, but is saying that the very beliefs of these people came from an actual person who was executed under Roman laws. He didn’t believe that the person of Christ never existed, he was referring specifically to the message of Christ that was preached by his followers, as the “evil” started in Judea and spread to Rome (which collaborates with Paul’s ministry funnily enough). And primary sources never usually have the luxury of the author giving their sources so stating such a thing is irrelevant really. The fact is, Tacticus was an historian and all his work has been considered incredibly useful and accurate in terms of First Century history, this source is as valid as his other sources.
And I agree, proving the historical Jesus is one thing, proving the divine Jesus is something else. The only historical evidence for the latter lies in the New Testament accounts which may very well have been edited over time to suite certain agendas. It is however, a debatable area with many believing and dis-believing it on historical grounds, from equally qualified people. The existence of similar practices from other religions however doesn’t constitute as evidence against the divine Christ however, one could at least speculate that it does, just as one could speculate that 9/11 was an insider job because of various observations, but its nothing more than conspiracy territory. Plus, the vast majority of such cases aren’t supported by the wider historical community, not just Christians. A quick search of the author above via my university search engine brings up a host of historical criticism of her work stating that a lot of it is simply historically inaccurate.
And the lack of wealth of evidence to Jesus is down to one’s perception of the evidence available, you choose to not acknowledge the New Testament sources as historical sources, that’s up to you, but you can’t then claim the absolute that little evidence exists. There are rules in history that you have to follow to provide good scholarship unfortunately. Not everyone goes through mental gymnastics to believe in the divine Jesus, again, its down to the individual. In my head its perfectly simple once you scrape away the dogma that the church has surrounded it with. And you can’t blame the lack of healthy societal transformation with the use of Christianity as a means to deny the divine Christ, because that was down to the people involved. People will corrupt anything, no matter how perfect or special it is. Not to mention, none of these are claims of which Jesus made.
Well, D.M. Murdock and others provide a number of probable reasons to fabricate the Jesus story. You can read the summary here. I have personal experience in how these myths get made up in my own religious tradition and some very intelligent people believe that Ellen White was a last day prophet and provide all kinds of extensive reasoning for this and yet it is clear that it is made up.
The fact that the gospels claim that Jesus raised the dead, walked on water, transfigured himself, fed 5000 people, changed water into wine, are clear indications that these authors are making stuff up. The fact that there are universities dedicated to studying these “facts” doesn’t make them any more true. When you study the methods of truth used by ancient church fathers you find a lot of magical thinking. All of these severely limit the possibility we will ever know that Jesus was a real person and it certainly places doubt on much of their claims.
The rules of scholarship used in the study of history are such because they are the best methods we have. In terms of deciding if any of it is actual truth is beyond the scope of these methods, so I would never use them to make life decisions. They are fine for extrapolation and creating some type of story, but I would never call history truthful. It is always colored by the narrative of the victor. The idea of historical accuracy is only true within a very narrow set of assumptions. The idea of actual historical accuracy is a myth.
I don’t really care if Jesus actually existed or not as a person. I don’t actually know either way, but I think there is enough evidence to provide some significant doubt. In practical terms there is not enough to give my life over to Jesus as a belief system. Reality is what all of us are accountable to. Actual truth doesn’t need defending. Truth is like a wall we all eventually run into. I can debate that gravity is only a theory, but it stops being a theory as soon as I hit the ground.
Well I can’t debate with someone who just flatly denies history as an academic area for truth and I don’t really appreciate it being ridiculed to such a degree. Historical accuracy is based on the enormity of the evidence within the historical field one is investigating, and with enough evidence from the time you can most certainly start to dish out facts about that time. To deny this is I’m sorry, sheer ignorance, to the scope of a fundamentalist denying Evolution and it strikes me as more of a defensive opinion rather than based on reason simply because history provides a valid area for debate when it comes to Jesus. A huge portion of modern day perspective and understanding is based on a knowledge of history, that’s facts that are established in our past due to extensive research. You make a post on the findings of Murdock and her views on the mythology of Christianity and at the same time you claim that the very apparatus she is using to substantiate such claims is inadequate in a search for truth.
And if you don’t care if he existed or not as a person, why are you trying to enforce such a claim? I believe the existence of Jesus is very important to establish within this debate…
Well you’re projecting that I’m quoting D.M. Murdock as fact. She just establishes doubt.
I think you underestimate the capacity of humans to lie to themselves.
Our modern day perspective is just based on modern myths. It’s all stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the world. They are all based on assumptions.
I have found it very useful to just pay attention to what I know from direct experience. I enjoy history, but I am fully aware that it is highly interpreted and the writers of history tend to write from the perspective of the victor. This is particularly true of Roman history. You could get killed if you didn’t write history favorable to the perspective of the rulers of the day.
I’m not sure how denying the accuracy of history is an insult to you? All I have to look at is the American history taught to me in elementary school and how that history isn’t quite so rosy to understand that having a healthy dose of doubt is good. And that is fairly recent history compared to the writings we have from the 1st century.
Narratives are useful to provide inspiration and to explore different ways of seeing the world, but they are not real. This is a basic philosophical point of reference that I find useful. It keeps me from investing in illusions.
Also the wiki article you posted only proves what I have been saying more, for example:
Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the first position, i.e. that Jesus never existed has the least amount of scholarly support, and although some modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority.[11][12][13]
Mainstream scholars have generally rejected the basic elements of the myth theories on a number of grounds, by providing specific responses.[76][77]
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 (the source from Josephus) of the Antiquities to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” [147] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[142][143][148][149][150][151]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus’s reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[92][173][174][175][176] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus,[177] while other scholars, like Charles Guignebert and R. T. France, have argued that Tacitus may simply have recorded what he had heard through Christians.[178][179] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus’s death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[92] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[176]
And more aptly:
Mainstream scholarship also generally rejects the concept of homogenous dying and rising gods, the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory, such as New Testament scholar Robert Price.[77][208] Eddy and Boyd state that there are at least three separate problems with the dying and rising god analogy:
First, that most modern scholars question that there is even a category called “dying and rising gods”.[77] Eddy and Boyd states that upon analysis it turns out that either there is no death, no resurrection or no god in the examples used to construct the category.[77]Jonathan Z. Smith states that the category of dying and rising gods is a “misnomer based on imaginative reconstruction”.[209] The Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion states that Smith is correct in pointing out many discontinuing within the category and although some scholars support the category, it is generally seen as involving excessive generalization.[83]
Secondly, even if the category is accepted, there is no scholarly evidence that Jesus fits that profile.[77] Tryggve Mettinger, one of the scholars who believes the category exists agrees with that assessment and states that Jesus does not fit in the category.[84]
Thirdly, not only is there no evidence of a historical influence by the pagan myths of dying and rising gods on the gospels authors, most scholars agree that any such historical influence is “entirely implausible”.[77] Except for Osiris, all written accounts of the myths of dying and rising gods date to after the birth of Christianity, and could not have influenced it; and scholars generally hold that monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan stories.[77] And the death and rebirth of Osiris repeats every season, based on vegetation cycles and is very different from the death of Jesus.[77]
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.