SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 158:
Line 158: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 197:
Line 232: − − == Christ myth arguments and proponents == − Christ myth theory has been around for over 250 years and has never had much traction among actual experts of both secular or religious backgrounds.<ref>Larry Hurtado (Scholar). December 2017. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20250904143324/https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/ Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars]" Response to Richard Carrier. "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."</ref> − − Most mythicists employ similar main arguments: they argue that the Pauline epistles and the gospels do not establish that Jesus existed; they argue that non-biblical sources from the first and early second centuries do not establish Jesus existed; and they posit that that Jesus was considered mythical from the beginning among early Christians.<ref>Robert Price. 2009. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" essay. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830838684.</ref> − − A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination. These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German, who has subsequently abandoned this position after reading the works of the renowned J.D.G. Dunn), Earl Doherty (who only holds a bachelor's degree and once wrote a self-published booklet on the subject), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Richard Carrier (who, although he has a doctoral degree, failed to find an academic position in an institution of higher learning and is therefore currently a blogger), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what it true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars. Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced. For example, in their work ''The Jesus Mysteries'', Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “[[Orphic mysteries|Orpheus]] crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.<ref>"In his review of this book in ''Gnomon'', 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (''AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde'', 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, ''Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement'', 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html Blog]</ref> − − The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods: − :…''if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.''<ref>M. Grant, ''Jesus: An Historian's Review'', pp. 199-200</ref> − − Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst: − :''The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.''<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.</ref> − − == Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed == − [[File:Hoffman Christ And The Rich Young Ruler.jpg|thumb|Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.]] − ''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and evidence]] − − Historical illiteracy and an ignorance of [[historiography]] is widespread among [[atheism|atheists]] (see: [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]). − − Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed. − − In an article entitled ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'', Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure: − {{cquote|I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.<ref>[http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'' by Christopher Price]</ref>}} − − For more information, please see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism#Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed|Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed]]. − − === Atheists and selective use of academic consensus === − − An irony of atheists asserting that Jesus never existed is that atheists often appeal to the academic consensus when it comes to pseudoscience such [[evolution]]. Atheists only seem to find it typical to quote the scholarly consensus when it appeals to their positions as something with value, however scholarly consensus seems to lose all value when it does not agree with them. − {{See also|Atheist hypocrisy}} − − ==== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins ==== − − [[John Lennox]] pointed out to [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>
Historicity of Jesus (view source)
Revision as of 16:38, September 20, 2025
, 16:38, September 20, 2025no edit summary
[[Image:27 2blinka fig01f.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. [[Simon Greenleaf]] is often cited in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. ]]
[[Image:27 2blinka fig01f.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. [[Simon Greenleaf]] is often cited in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. ]]
== Christ myth arguments and proponents ==
Christ myth theory has been around for over 250 years and has never had much traction among actual experts of both secular or religious backgrounds.<ref>Larry Hurtado (Scholar). December 2017. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20250904143324/https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/ Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars]" Response to Richard Carrier. "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."</ref>
Most mythicists employ similar main arguments: they argue that the Pauline epistles and the gospels do not establish that Jesus existed; they argue that non-biblical sources from the first and early second centuries do not establish Jesus existed; and they posit that that Jesus was considered mythical from the beginning among early Christians.<ref>Robert Price. 2009. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" essay. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 9780830838684.</ref>
A few academics, notably not including historians or biblical scholars, have asserted that Jesus never existed and that he is simply a mythological imagination. These include G. A. Wells (a professor of German, who has subsequently abandoned this position after reading the works of the renowned J.D.G. Dunn), Earl Doherty (who only holds a bachelor's degree and once wrote a self-published booklet on the subject), Robert M. Price (a systematic theologian), Michael Martin (a philosopher), Richard Carrier (who, although he has a doctoral degree, failed to find an academic position in an institution of higher learning and is therefore currently a blogger), Timothy Freke (who holds no postgraduate degree), and Peter Gandy (who holds no doctoral degree). By such parenthetical comments this article does not intend to be uncharitable to the academics or others who hold to this position, but it is no disparagement to observe what it true: that these scholars are not historians or biblical scholars. Neither is it unfair to observe how this has, at times, impeded the quality of work produced. For example, in their work ''The Jesus Mysteries'', Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy used as cover art an image of an amulet of “[[Orphic mysteries|Orpheus]] crucified” (their position being that Jesus was a mythological figure patterned after Osiris-Dionysus) which has been proven to be a forgery.<ref>"In his review of this book in ''Gnomon'', 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of Josef Keil and R. Zahn (''AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde'', 1926, 62 ff.) that the Orpheoc Bakkikos gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, ''Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement'', 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265. This problem was identified by James Hannam; see his comments on his [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html Blog]</ref>
The mythological view has been rejected by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view derives from a lack of application of historical methods:
:…''if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.''<ref>M. Grant, ''Jesus: An Historian's Review'', pp. 199-200</ref>
Perhaps the scholarly opinion of the position is best summed by Robert E. Van Voorst:
:''The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.''<ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.</ref>
== Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ And The Rich Young Ruler.jpg|thumb|Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann (1824–1911), 1889.]]
''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and evidence]]
Historical illiteracy and an ignorance of [[historiography]] is widespread among [[atheism|atheists]] (see: [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]).
Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed.
In an article entitled ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'', Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:
{{cquote|I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.<ref>[http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'' by Christopher Price]</ref>}}
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism#Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed|Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed]].
=== Atheists and selective use of academic consensus ===
An irony of atheists asserting that Jesus never existed is that atheists often appeal to the academic consensus when it comes to pseudoscience such [[evolution]]. Atheists only seem to find it typical to quote the scholarly consensus when it appeals to their positions as something with value, however scholarly consensus seems to lose all value when it does not agree with them.
{{See also|Atheist hypocrisy}}
==== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins ====
[[John Lennox]] pointed out to [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>
== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
== Christian Apologetics and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
A few weeks [later] these very same men and women who had huddled in secret (John 20:19) were fearlessly and openly proclaiming the resurrection of Christ—even before the Sanhedrin that was responsible for Christ’s death (Acts 4-5). The only thing that can account for this immediate and miraculous change is that they were absolutely convinced they had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.<ref>[https://jashow.org/articles/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-from-the-dead/ EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD], John Ankerberg website</ref>}}
A few weeks [later] these very same men and women who had huddled in secret (John 20:19) were fearlessly and openly proclaiming the resurrection of Christ—even before the Sanhedrin that was responsible for Christ’s death (Acts 4-5). The only thing that can account for this immediate and miraculous change is that they were absolutely convinced they had encountered the bodily resurrected Christ.<ref>[https://jashow.org/articles/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-from-the-dead/ EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD], John Ankerberg website</ref>}}
== See also ==
== See also ==