The Mythicism Myth

Jesus was obviously a real person

Introduction

Jesus mythicists are those who claim that Jesus was not a real person in history. This view is rejected by ~100% of serious scholars; Bart Ehrman notes “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.” Despite this, mythicism is taken seriously by quite a number of people on the internet. Turns out that the consensus on atheist Reddit is not always in accordance with the scholarly consensus, which is a development that I find shocking!

Dispiritingly, lots of atheists seem to regard mythicism as serious because they watched a few debates where the mythicist—usually Carrier—seemed to do well. In this essay, I’m going to explain why mythicism is not taken seriously by anyone serious and why it’s almost certainly false. Most of the points I make here are summaries of the arguments from Tim O’Neil’s excellent explanation on his blog History For Atheists—very worth checking out if you want to learn more.

Mythicism is one of those crank theories that can begin to look plausible when you have a forceful and informed advocate rattling off facts in its favor. But when you take the time to seriously analyze it, the story starts to fall apart completely. The basic case against mythicism about Jesus is rather similar to the basic case against mythicism about, say, Thales or Pythagoras: a bunch of people wrote about them existing. Normally, people do not write in detail about people who don’t exist. The early writers about Jesus include non-Christian historians Tacitus and Josephus, as well as Paul and each of the Gospel writers. Each provides evidence that is enough, by itself, to make it clear that there was a real Jesus. Their testimony collectively makes a case that is utterly overwhelming.

1 Tacitus

Our first reference to Jesus comes from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, who is, as Wikipedia informs us “widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.” In Annals XV.44, Tacitus wrote:

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…

So, this looks pretty straightforward. Tacitus, a reliable historian, talks about how the Christians got their name from someone who he calls Christus, and describes that guy being crucified under Pilate. Obviously he is talking about Jesus, and the facts precisely line up with later Christian descriptions. While it’s been argued that Tacitus is talking about someone else, based on the fact that the original likely read Chrestus, this is probably simply a clumsy way of spelling Christians. The odds that there would be the Christians, and another group called the Chrestians, both of whom claimed to be named after a guy that got crucified under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius is much too low.

The most common objection from mythicists is that Tacitus got his information from the Christians. But as Tim O’Neill notes, Tacitus didn’t tend to get his information from hearsay. O’Neill notes in the Annals, IV.11, Tacitus writes:

“My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.”

When Tacitus is getting his info from hearsay—from stuff others have told him—he is careful to note this fact. In addition, as O’Neill furthers, Tacitus describes the Christians as “a most mischievous superstition …. evil …. hideous and shameful …. [with a] hatred against mankind.” Now, I often describe

Amos Wollen

that way, but that’s why I don’t use him as a source! It’s similarly unlikely Tacitus would use the Christians as a source—wholly without mentioning it.

Finally, mythicists argue that the passage is an interpolation—that it was added by later Christians. But there’s just no good reason to think that. If Christians were adding an extra sentence, it would be quite odd for them to describe Jesus as having been crucified, rather than something grander, like that he was God incarnate. One can always claim that any reference to anyone is a later interpolation, but given that there are relatively few later additions to most texts, it’s generally a rather unlikely explanation. You shouldn’t adopt it just to keep your mythicist theory unless there is independent strong reason to adopt mythicism—which there is not.

2 Josephus

The next bit of evidence for Jesus’s existence comes from Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX.200-203 (the important bit is in bold):

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

As O’Neill notes, Josephus was a fellow citizen of Jerusalem, along with James, and was twenty-five when James was executed. Thus, he would have been in a position to know about James’s execution. If Josephus knew Jesus’s brother, then there must have been a real Jesus (fake people don’t have brothers).

Generally mythicists claim that this is an interpolation, but this is very hard to believe. Why would the interpolator say “who was called the Christ,” rather than “who was the Christ?” If Christian interpolators are known for anything, it’s not their subtlety in describing Jesus. It’s especially unlikely to be a later interpolation given that it fits very well with Josephus’s pattern of writing about people who were called other things—O’Neill lists various examples:

” … he should find them between Jerusalem and the ascent of Engedi, at a place called ‘the Eminence’, and that he should not fight against them.”(Antiquities IX.11)

” … Pacorus left with Herod two hundred horsemen, and ten men, who were called ‘the Freemen’…”(Antiquities XIV.342)

“Jonathan and his colleagues …. raised a report of their own contrivance, that Roman horsemen were seen at a place called ‘Union’, in the borders of Galilee … “(Life 54)

“As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, son of Simon, formerly high priest.”(Antiquities, XX.196)

The phrase used for “who was called the Christ,” is του λεγομενου Χριστου, which appears only once in the Bible and in a very small number of places in early Christian writings. While some, like Richard Carrier, have suggested that Jesus the brother of James is the same person as Jesus son of Damneus, this requires that Josephus first mentioned Jesus with some other name (if the interpolation involved changing an existing phrase), or without a name (if it involved adding ‘who was called the Christ’ from whole cloth), and then later called him the son of Damneus. But Josephus never does that. In all his writings, he never introduces people twice, in both cases with distinct titles.

The last major problem for explaining away the Josephus reference: Josephus’s statement that Jesus was called the Christ is quoted by Origen, an early Christian writer. If the phrase were a later interpolation, it’s quite unlikely it would have been interpolated by that extremely early date (before almost any biblical copying). Now, Carrier replies that Origen was confusing Josephus with Hegesippus, because Origen gets some of the details wrong, but Origen was an exegete not a historian. He often said his sources said stuff that they didn’t. If Origen was really referring to Hegesippus, how unlikely would it be that he’d accidentally attribute a phrase to Josephus—about Christ being called the Christ—that actually happens to appear in our modern copies of Josephus.

To deny the authentic Josephus reference you have to think either:

1. There was a second Jesus with a second brother James who happened to be discussed by Josephus.

2. Origen for some reason said Josephus claimed Jesus was called the Christ when Josephus didn’t really claim that, because Origen was accidentally thinking of Hegesippus.

3. The other Jesus’s description was later swapped out for the earlier Jesus by some Christian scribe without anyone noticing.

4. The later scribal addition was remarkably consistent with the way Josephus constantly describes people.

Or:

1. Josephus referred to Jesus son of Damneus twice, with two different titles, even though that’s something he literally never does.

2. Origen for some reason said Josephus said Jesus was called the Christ when he didn’t really say that, because Origen was accidentally thinking of Hegesippus.

3. The other Jesus’s description was later swapped out for the earlier Jesus by some Christian scribe without anyone noticing.

4. The later scribal addition was remarkably consistent with the way Josephus constantly describes people.

Not very plausible! If you buy this, well, a Nigerian prince wants to speak to you!

3 Paul

Paul, writing just a few decades after the death of Jesus, seemed to claim quite clearly that Jesus existed. In Romans 1:1-3, Paul says Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh.” Romans 9:4-5 says “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” Galatians 4:4 says “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” Galatians 1:19 describes Paul saying he “saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” 1 Thessalonians 1:14-5 says “the Jews … killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.” These are just some of the many passages that make reference to Jesus’s earthly life—there are many more.

Let’s begin with the Romans passage about Jesus being born of David according to the flesh. How the heck do mythicists—who claim, mind you, that Paul is their star witness, and thus believe Paul absolutely has to be on their side—explain away this passage. The Greek is ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ—the word for seed is spermatos which is used every other time in the Bible to refer to earthly births. Other words used in the passage also refer exclusively to normal births.

There are various tortured attempts to explain this passage, but in my view, the best route is to simply declare it an interpolation. But again, the more things you have to unmotivatedly call interpolated just to fit your theory, the worse your theory is! The funniest explanation is that of Richard Carrier, who suggests that Jesus was thought to be sired from David according to a cosmic sperm bank—where God took David’s sperm and used it to make Jesus. LOL! He claims that belief in a cosmic sperm bank was common among ancient Jews, but his source is from literally a thousand years later and does not mention a cosmic sperm bank. If someone says that A was born of the seed of B, the reasonable inference is not that they A was manufactured by B’s sperm, but that A is a descendant of B.

It’s true that Christians believed lots of weird stuff, but by definition, if some interpretation requires believing really weird stuff, it’s less probable than a normal interpretation (if you’re not sure whether I’m saying that my brother came home or that a leprechaun manufactured from the seed of David did, normally you ought to go with the brother interpretation).

Seeing as there are no other references to people being manufactured out of another’s sperm in this way from antiquity, we ought to think the odds of this are exceptionally low. The idea that Paul would just briefly mention it in one sentence before never discussing it again, when it’s such a bizarre idea, is ridiculous. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you!

I’ll just explore a single other passage: Galatians 1:19 describes that Paul “saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” Even Carrier and Price admit that this passage is evidence for historicism. Generally mythicists try to explain this away by claiming that Paul was referring to James not as a literal biological brother, but using brother to mean a follower of Christ. This is similar to how modern Christians talk about “brothers in Christ.”

The main problem with this explanation is that in context, the brother of Christ is being distinguished from other believers. The full passage reads:

“Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed with him 15 days. But I didn’t see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”

In context, Paul is distinguishing James from the other followers of Christ who are disciples. Thus, it makes no sense if he’s using “the Lord’s brother” to mean anything other than that James is a disciple. This is especially likely because later Christians found it embarrassing that Jesus had brothers and tried to downplay this fact; despite this, James is consistently mentioned as Jesus’s brother both in the earlier Josephus passages, the Gospels, and in Christian tradition.

If Paul was using brother allegorically to simply mean a follower of Christ, it would be a big coincidence that the one person he’d call a brother of Christ happened to be universally attested in all other traditions to be Jesus’s brother. Mythicists have to tie themselves in knots to explain away a passage that on its face strongly favors a historicist reading.

4 Parting thoughts

The mythicist theory is wildly implausible. It fits poorly with the historical evidence. It requires that there was an originally mythicist Jewish cult believing in a celestial deity named Jesus, who we have literally no record of, and that this then morphed seamlessly into belief in an earthly Jesus. This is unlikely on a bunch of counts:

1. As already mentioned, lots of writing points to the existence of an earthly Jesus.

2. If there was this earlier cult that believed in a non-literal Jesus who wasn’t a person in history, why the heck would they have died out so quickly—in just a few decades. Likely we’d have heard of them, just as we’ve heard of the gnostics.

3. If Jesus was a celestial deity, likely he’d have some grand name rather than just having the name of a normal guy ישוע (Jeshua, named after Joshua of the old testament). If he was an angel, he’d likely have a more exotic angel name.

4. Even though there are a few cases of cults believing in a celestial deity and then reinserting him back into history, these are rare. They usually insert the character into the distant past, rather than just a few decades ago. Historical reportage is much more common, so the prior of Carrier’s theory is low.

In this article, I haven’t even mentioned the Gospel evidence for Jesus, even though, in my judgment, that provides another powerful reason to think that Jesus existed. When a fact is theologically inconvenient and multiply attested, like Jesus’s birth in Nazareth or his baptism by John the Baptist, that gives us reason to think it happened. From this, we can infer that there was a real Jesus.

The mythicist theory is fringe and deservedly so. Those who find themselves in disagreement with ~100% of scholarship on an issue are usually in the wrong. Every kook has some account of why the scholarship went so badly wrong, but in the end, the consensus is far more likely to be right than a few fringe thinkers.