|
Article Excerpt
The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a 'pure-myth' viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars, which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this article. The author himself makes no pretense of being a 'biblical scholar,' only an avid reader of their works.
Before I attempt to present at least summaries of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a 'position') I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsburg's four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsburg's 1909 book. The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.
1. "Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine: and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." (This is generally known as the "literalist position.")
2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life." (This is usually referred to as the "historical myth" position.)
3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the "philosophical myth" position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all "radical," and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.
4. "Other ['more radical' is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth--that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional--made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the "pure-myth" position.)
The Seven Major Arguments
I admit that there may very well be more than "seven major arguments" for the pure-myth position and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader's consideration: (1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time. (2) The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. (3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths. (4) What we now call "Christianity" existed long before Jesus' time. It was derived from earlier "scripture" and more ancient myths. (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a "spiritual" Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus. (6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus' looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message. (7) The "you-can't-have-it-both-ways' argument.
Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely "prove" that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a universal negative. It might be possible that there was a "real" William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have "visited" earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. My claim is, in other words, that applying 'Ockham's razor' (i.e. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts) and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus, Further, I contend that he and consequently all that is said about him are entirely fictional.
Now that I've made that exceedingly clear, let's get on with the arguments, one by one.
No one noticed Jesus in his day.
As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have "pointed with pride" to a handful of early extrabiblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as real first-century historical persons. "Ah ha," they say. "Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near...
|
