I've been fascinated by the work of a scholar named Richard Carrier for many years now. I've read two of his books and heard many lectures on YouTube from him on the subject of historicity. The books I've learned from include:
Dr. Carrier is a contemporary American historian, author, and prominent proponent of the Christ myth theory, which posits that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure but rather a mythological or fictional creation. He has a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University and has focused much of his work on the intellectual world of the Greeks and Romans, early Christianity, and the philosophical context of the time.
Carrier is known for applying historical methodologies, including Bayesian probability, to the question of Jesus' existence. His approach is often seen as controversial and represents a departure from the consensus view among historians and biblical scholars.
Carrier's work is part of a minority viewpoint in historical and biblical scholarship. His application of Bayesian reasoning to history, while innovative, is often met with skepticism by mainstream scholars, without justifying their skepticism or by simply appealing to tradition and the gospels of the Christians. His books and public presentations have contributed to ongoing debates about the methods used in historical research, the reliability of historical texts, and the historical existence of Jesus.
Arguments Against the Historical Existence of Jesus
The New Testament, particularly the Gospels, is the primary source of information about Jesus Christ. These texts, written several decades after the supposed events, provide detailed narratives of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection. However, their primary purpose is theological, not historical, which leads to questions about their historical accuracy and objectivity.
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, and Tacitus, a Roman historian, are often cited as non-Christian sources that attest to the existence of Jesus. Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews"1 contains a passage about Jesus, although its authenticity is debated due to potential Christian interpolation.
Now there was about this time a wise man, if it be law|ful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonder|ful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not for|sake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the Divine prophets had said these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
-Flavius Jospehus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18
Tacitus, in his "Annals," mentions Christ in the context of Emperor Nero's persecution of Christians, offering a Roman perspective on early Christianity.
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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.
-”Annals” by Roman Senator Tacitus, written some 85 years after the alleged life of Jesus, the Christ
Skeptics point out that there are no contemporary records from Jesus' time that directly mention him. This absence of contemporaneous evidence is a significant point in the argument against Jesus' historical existence, especially given the purported impact of his teachings. The Gospels are viewed by some critics as theological constructs rather than historical accounts. Concerns about their reliability stem from their late composition, internal inconsistencies, and the lack of independent verification of their narratives.
The authenticity of the passages in Josephus and the context of Tacitus' mention are subjects of scholarly debate. Critics argue that these references are insufficient for establishing Jesus' historicity, especially considering the potential for later Christian additions or the lack of direct evidence. The silence of other contemporary writers, particularly other Jewish and Roman historians, about Jesus is seen as problematic for the case for his historical existence. This absence is notable given the alleged remarkable nature of his life and deeds.
Some scholars propose that the story of Jesus Christ is a synthesis of various mythological and religious traditions. They draw parallels between Jesus and other deities or mythical figures from different cultures, suggesting that the Jesus narrative is a creation of early Christian communities rather than a record of a historical person.
Archaeology plays a crucial role in understanding the historical context of Jesus' time. Archaeological discoveries, such as ancient buildings, inscriptions, and everyday items, provide valuable insights into the life and times of the first century in the regions where Jesus is said to have lived and taught. However, the absence of direct archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence is often cited by skeptics.
Textual criticism, the study of manuscripts to determine their original form, is particularly relevant in assessing the reliability of the New Testament as a historical source. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament texts date to decades after the events they describe, leading to questions about the accuracy of these accounts.
Comparative studies of religions provide a broader context for understanding the Jesus narrative. Similarities between the stories of Jesus and other religious or mythological figures can either be interpreted as evidence of a common religious heritage or as an argument against the historicity of the Jesus narrative.
Mythicist Position
The mythicist position in historical studies, particularly in the context of Jesus, the Christ, posits that Jesus was not a historical figure but a mythological creation. Let's examine the caution exercised by academia in adopting the mythicist viewpoint, and explore the implications of such a stance and its impact on the study of ancient history.
Mythicism often relies on drawing parallels between religious narratives and earlier myths, suggesting a lack of historical foundation for these figures. In the case of Jesus, mythicists propose that he was a construct of early Christian communities rather than a real person.
Historical methodology is grounded in evaluating available evidence to construct the most plausible narrative of past events. Academics are cautious about mythicism because it often requires dismissing sources that, if similarly dismissed for other historical figures, would lead to a widespread rejection of what is known about ancient history.
The primary sources for Jesus' life are the Gospels, which are theological in nature. However, dismissing them entirely as historical sources contradicts the way other ancient texts are treated. Historians routinely extract historical data from texts with biases or agendas, applying critical analysis to separate potential historical facts from fiction or interpretation.
While the references to Jesus in non-Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus are subject to debate, they are considered part of the historical record. Academics approach these sources with caution, aware of the potential for interpolation but also recognizing their value as independent attestations of Jesus' existence.
To reiterate, academics apply the criterion of plausibility in assessing historical claims. The development of early Christianity, its rapid growth, and its profound impact on history are often seen as more plausible if Jesus was a real historical figure, albeit perhaps different in some ways from the Gospel accounts.
My Position, To Date
My stance aligns with the position of Dr. Richard Carrier, which challenges the traditional view of Jesus, the Christ as a historical figure. I contend that the prevailing academic consensus, which largely favors the historicity of Jesus, is influenced by longstanding cultural and theological biases. This perspective is grounded in the view that the existing evidence, or lack thereof, coupled with methodological concerns, casts significant doubt on the historical existence of Jesus. It suggests that the narrative of Jesus could be a mythological construct rather than a record of a real person.
Think of it this way: in 1947, a guy found some sticks and tinfoil in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. At the time, some said that it was debris from an alien spacecraft. What was said to have happened within just 30 years was that an entire flying saucer was recovered, complete with alien bodies that were subject to autopsy by the government! We now know that it was, in fact, just some tinfoil and wood. That's how myths are bourn.
Another example is associated with the term "Luddite", originally referred to as a group of English workers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. They were opposing the rise of mechanized looms and knitting frames, which they believed threatened their jobs and skills.
Ned Ludd was a young apprentice in Leicestershire, England, in the late 18th century. The most famous story recounts that, in a fit of rage, he destroyed a stocking frame. This act of breaking machinery became emblematic of the resistance against industrialization. Ludd's supposed act of defiance made him a symbolic figure for the Luddite movement. His name was used as a rallying cry and a symbol of resistance. Workers protesting against industrialization would often claim to be following the example of Ned Ludd.
One problem: there never lived a man named Ned Ludd. It was all made up. The story of Ned Ludd appears to have grown out of oral tradition and folklore. There is little to no historical evidence to confirm his existence. The lack of records or contemporary references to a person named Ned Ludd prior to the Luddite movement suggests that he was a fictional or symbolic character.
The creation of the Ned Ludd myth served as a way to personify the struggles and resistance of workers during this period of rapid industrial change. By embodying their struggle in a single character, the movement gained a more relatable and compelling narrative.
As the Luddite movement spread across different parts of England, the legend of Ned Ludd evolved and adapted to local contexts. Different versions of the story emerged, but the core theme of resistance to industrialization remained constant.
The early 19th century was a time of significant social and economic upheaval in England. The Industrial Revolution was transforming traditional industries, leading to widespread job insecurity and social unrest. In this context, the Ned Ludd myth provided a powerful symbol for disenfranchised workers.
Ned Ludd is a mythical character whose story was created and evolved within the context of the Luddite movement. He became a symbol of resistance against the rapid industrialization and mechanization that threatened traditional jobs and skills during the early 19th century. His legend is more a reflection of the sentiments and struggles of the time rather than a record of a historical individual.
So, if it can happen in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, it sure could happen before then, too. The mythicist position reflects a critical approach to historical analysis, advocating for a reevaluation of the evidence and methodologies that have shaped the understanding of one of history's most influential figures.
Written about 65 years after the alleged life of Jesus, the Christ.