Jesus' Historicity
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
They think he most likely existed. |
Anonymous
And Ehrman undermines his own argument by stating something as true, when it is not in fact true. Not every scholar believes in a historical Jesus, and there are plenty of scholars now that have made well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. Ehrman also acknowledges there is not evidence, and then he makes his own specious speculation. |
Anonymous
Has anyone here denied that he lived? Saying that we don’t have evidence isn’t saying he didn’t exist. |
Anonymous
We have stories about him and/or his followers, but none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge. |
Anonymous
Virtually all professional historians, biblical scholars, and classicists who specialize in the relevant period (whether Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise) accept that a historical Jesus existed, was born around 4–6 BCE, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers, taught in Galilee, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30–33 CE. Are you a professional historian, biblical scholar, or classicist who specializes in the relevant period? If not, why are you speaking for them? Among tenured or professionally employed professors of biblical studies, classics, or ancient history at major universities, the number who openly support mythicism is effectively zero. Even strong critics of traditional Christianity (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos [deceased], Zeba Crook) consider mythicism historically untenable. |
Anonymous
Tacitus is hearsay and is not evidence for a historical Jesus. Josephus = one is an interpolation (not evidence for a historical Jesus) and the other is an outright forgery added by later Christians. Paul speaks of a cosmic Jesus, not a historical one. It's also telling that none of the information from the community he is responding to has survived the later orthodox Christian scrubbing they did of any information that they considered heretical. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, nor are they based on any oral history. There goes all your contemporary sources. Add in that Philo is completely silent on Jesus (or Christianity altogether = a small sect that had no relevance). Next? |
Anonymous
Exactly. No evidence. Just stories. |
Anonymous
What information we do have points primarily to he didn't exist. It's all myth. A tall tale that was fabricated. |
Anonymous
| Do your own homework. |
Anonymous
Obviously all of the Bible “scholars” believe he existed. 
|
Anonymous
That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist—historians overwhelmingly conclude he did, based on the available evidence and comparisons to other ancient figures. Why is the lack of contemporary non-religious sources isn’t unusual, you may wonder? —> In antiquity, written records were rare, often lost, and biased toward elites like emperors or generals. Most people from that era—including teachers, philosophers, and rebels—lack firsthand contemporary accounts. For example: Socrates (died 399 BCE): No writings from his lifetime survive; everything we know comes from his students Plato and Xenophon, written decades later. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Contemporary writers existed, but none of their works survive; our main sources are from centuries later, like Arrian (2nd century CE). Spartacus (died 71 BCE): No contemporary records at all; details come from later Roman historians like Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE). Even Julius Caesar (died 44 BCE): While he wrote his own accounts, many details rely on later biographies, and some claims (like his famous campaigns) lack direct corroboration from enemies or neutrals.  Historians accept these figures as real because the cumulative evidence (later writings, archaeological hints, cultural impact) points to a historical core, even if details are embellished. The same logic applies to Jesus: absence of perfect evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for a lower-class Galilean preacher in a remote Roman province. Christian Sources (Closest to Contemporaries) Paul’s Letters (written ~50-60 CE): Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, never met Jesus but knew his brother James and disciple Peter personally (Galatians 1:18-19). He references Jesus’ teachings (e.g., on divorce), last supper, crucifixion under Roman authority, and resurrection claims. These are within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death—earlier than many sources for other figures.  Gospels (Mark ~70 CE; Matthew/Luke ~80-90 CE; John ~90-100 CE): These draw from oral traditions and earlier written sources (like the hypothetical “Q” document). They include “embarrassing” details unlikely to be invented, like Jesus’ baptism (implying he needed repentance) or his cry of abandonment on the cross.  Non-Christian Sources (Independent Corroboration) These come from Jewish and Roman writers who had no stake in promoting Christianity. They’re later but reference Jesus as a historical figure: Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews, he calls Jesus a “wise man” who performed “startling deeds,” was crucified by Pilate on Jewish leaders’ accusations, and had followers who believed he rose from the dead. A shorter passage mentions James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” While parts may have Christian interpolations, scholars agree the core references are authentic.   Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals, he describes “Christus” executed under Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, noting his followers (Christians) were persecuted by Nero. This is a hostile source confirming basic facts.  Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~112 CE): In a letter to Emperor Trajan, he reports Christians worshiping “Christus” as a god and meeting to honor him.  Others like Suetonius (~120 CE) mention disturbances caused by “Chrestus” (likely Jesus) among Jews in Rome, and Lucian of Samosata (~166 CE) mocks Christians for following a crucified “sophist.”  These align on key points: Jesus was a real Jewish teacher executed by Romans around 30 CE, founding a persistent movement. The vast majority of experts—including non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish), and others—affirm a historical Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher baptized by John, who gathered disciples and was crucified. Mythicism is a minority view, often compared to denying the Holocaust or moon landing in academic circles—interesting but not credible due to overreliance on silence and ignoring how movements like Christianity arise from real events. If you like being a peer of Holocaust deniers, and moon landing deniers, then by all means, continue with denial of the existence of Jesus Christ as a man who walked the earth. |
Anonymous
Overreach by assuming silence = invention. Cumulative evidence (Paul’s contacts + independent attestations + oral-to-written Gospels) makes a historical Jesus (~95–99% scholarly agreement) far likelier than myth. |
Anonymous
Plenty of biblical scholars are not believers, neither are most academic historians and classicists. I know this site is a bizarre hotbed of Jesus Mythicism, but among people who study the first century that's a position on par with vaccine and climate change skeptics. You can find some people, but they're rare. It was more popular 150 years ago. This discussion on /r/academicbiblical tries to count them and comes up with four. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xfo7q8/how_serious_are_jesus_mythism_taken/ That's also NOT a Christian subreddit. Tim O'Neil who comes up with the number of four is an atheist. He's written extensively about mythicism: https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ and is worth a read if you're genuinely interested. |
Anonymous
Your claim that “plenty of scholars now” are making well-reasoned arguments against the historical existence of Jesus doesn’t align with the current state of academic scholarship as of late 2025. While there are a few voices raising doubts—mostly from independent or adjunct scholars, or those on the fringes of biblical studies—these represent a tiny minority, and their work is overwhelmingly critiqued or ignored by mainstream experts. The “Christ myth theory” (the idea that Jesus is entirely mythical) remains a fringe position, with no significant shift in consensus over the past decade. I’ll break this down with the latest data, including recent publications, to show why the pro-historicity view holds firm. As of 2025, virtually all professional historians, classicists, and New Testament scholars (across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic backgrounds) affirm that a historical Jesus existed as a 1st-century Jewish preacher who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is based on cumulative evidence like early Christian writings (e.g., Paul’s letters ~50–60 CE), independent non-Christian attestations (e.g., Josephus ~93 CE, Tacitus ~116 CE), and the rapid emergence of a messianic movement in a Jewish context. There are not “plenty,” nor do they sway the academy—their output is sparse, self-published or niche, and routinely receives negative reviews for methodological flaws (e.g., overreliance on silence, speculative parallels to pagan myths). Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history, Columbia, 2008): The most active proponent. His 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus used Bayesian probability to argue doubt is warranted. He published The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus in 2025, surveying post-2014 studies and calling for scholarship to drop the historicity assumption. Carrier maintains a list of ~20 “qualified scholars” who take mythicism “seriously” (e.g., as plausible), but many are adjuncts, retirees, or non-specialists like philosophers. His work is critiqued for cherry-picking data and ignoring oral tradition evidence (e.g., in Vigiliae Christianae responses). Raphael Lataster (PhD candidate, University of Sydney, completed ~2019): A lecturer in religious studies. His 2019 book Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (peer-reviewed but niche) argues evidence “doesn’t add up.” His 2014 op-eds in The Conversation and Washington Post drew widespread scholarly backlash for oversimplifying sources like Josephus.  No major follow-up in 2025; his work is cited in mythicist bibliographies but dismissed in consensus reviews. Robert M. Price (two PhDs in theology/NT, but not in a tenure-track history role): A former minister turned atheist podcaster. His 2000 book The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems and 2018 Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed recycle 19th-century ideas (e.g., gospel midrash from OT). Active online (e.g., r/AcademicBiblical discussions), but peers like Daniel Gullotta (2017 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus) call it “bizarre” and footnote-worthy at best. Paul George (2020 book On Christian Origins, UWA student thesis)—argues Christianity arose without a single founder; not peer-reviewed widely. Hermann Detering (2011–2017 self-published German works)—claims non-Christian references are forgeries; fringe even among mythicists. A 2023 bibliography (The Christ Myth Theory: A Bibliography from 1970 to the Present) lists ~300 sources, but most are popular books, blogs, or repeats; only ~10–15 from credentialed academics since 2010, none shifting consensus. Virtually no scholar working in the field doubts the historical existence of Jesus. Mythicism fails basic evidential tests. Mythicism thrives online (e.g., r/skeptic threads, atheist YouTube) due to viral articles like “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed” (2014), but academia hasn’t budged. Why mythicists aren’t influencing academia and scholarship?—> Peer Review Gaps: Mythicist books often skip rigorous review or get panned (e.g., Lataster’s “negative reviews”). Internet Echo Chambers: Popularized by non-experts like David Fitzgerald (Nailed, 2010), but scholars compare it to Holocaust denial—intriguing but evidentially weak. No New Evidence: 2025 updates (e.g., Carrier’s book) rehash old arguments without overturning sources like Paul’s references to Jesus’ brother James. If “plenty” means “a vocal few on podcasts,” sure—but in journals like Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, it’s crickets for mythicism. Consensus requires broad agreement among tenured experts; this ain’t it. The evidence for a historical Jesus is probabilistic, like for Socrates or Hannibal—strong enough for ~99% of specialists. |
Anonymous
|
Richard Carrier, a historian with a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University (2008), is best known for his advocacy of the “Christ myth theory”—the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a purely mythical figure, not a historical person. While he has credentials and has published peer-reviewed work on unrelated topics (e.g., ancient science), his mythicist arguments, especially in books like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) and Jesus from Outer Space (2020), are widely regarded as fringe and flawed by mainstream scholars.
Rejection by Consensus: Virtually no tenured experts in biblical studies, classics, or ancient history endorse his views. As ancient historian Marko Marina notes, Carrier’s mythicism “has not won any supporters from critical scholars” due to a “lack of positive evidences from primary sources.” Similarly, Wikipedia’s entry on Carrier (updated November 2025) states that his interpretations “have not been accepted within academic scholarship” and are “considered fringe.” Scholars across ideologies (Christian, Jewish, atheist) affirm a historical Jesus based on cumulative evidence like Paul’s letters and Josephus; Carrier’s position is often compared to pseudohistory, akin to young-earth creationism in biology. Flawed Methodology: Carrier relies heavily on Bayesian probability to estimate Jesus’ non-existence at odds of 1-in-3 to 1-in-12,000, but critics call this “unnecessarily complicated and uninviting,” “tenuous,” and “problematic and unpersuasive.” For instance, in a 2017 review in Relegere, Daniel N. Gullotta praises the book’s rigor but faults its “lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions,” including cherry-picking data and ignoring counter-evidence like Paul’s references to Jesus’ earthly family (e.g., brother James in Galatians 1:19). Simon Gathercole (Cambridge) argues in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2018) that Carrier’s reading of Paul as describing a “cosmic” rather than historical Jesus is contradicted by the texts’ details of Jesus’ human life and death. Ideological Bias Over Evidence: Marina accuses Carrier of being “guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work,” prioritizing atheism-fueled skepticism over balanced analysis. Bart Ehrman (agnostic scholar) has called Carrier’s work “full of errors,” “sloppy,” and “irresponsible” in a 2022 blog response, noting it misinforms the public by dismissing standard sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus) as forgeries without sufficient proof. In Reddit’s r/AcademicBiblical (2023 thread), experts like those reviewing On the Historicity emphasize that Carrier misrepresents scholarly support for mythicism, inflating a handful of fringe voices (e.g., Robert M. Price) into a “growing trend.” Cherry-Picking and Ignoring Broader Scholarship: Carrier often relies on outdated or amateur sources (e.g., 19th-century mythicists) while dismissing recent work on oral traditions or the “criterion of embarrassment” (e.g., Jesus’ baptism implying sinfulness, unlikely to be invented). A 2024 analysis on The Secular Frontier critiques his denial of the Q source (early sayings of Jesus) as essential to his theory, arguing it fails “verse by verse” against evidence like 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 (Jews killing Jesus, presupposing historicity). Tim O’Neill, a history blogger, notes in r/samharris (2023) that mythicism persists not due to evidence but because “it’s a bad idea backed by weak arguments,” with Carrier having “wasted his life” defending it. Beyond academics, Carrier faces widespread criticism for his behavior, which has alienated peers and damaged mythicism’s credibility: Combative and Abusive Online Presence: Described as “combative, petty, and vindictive,” Carrier’s blogs and social media (e.g., Freethought Blogs) feature personal attacks, calling critics “incompetent,” “hack,” or “arrogantly dogmatic.” A 2017 Vridar blog post calls him an “embarrassment to mythicism,” arguing his “unseemly behavior… negates anything else he might bring to the table” and wastes “limited bandwidth” in debates. In r/DebateReligion (2018), users note his theories are “laughed at in academia” partly due to this toxicity. Controversies and Isolation: In 2016–2017, Carrier was accused of sexual harassment by multiple women in atheist/skeptic circles, leading to his resignation from the Atheist Community of Austin and bans from conferences. While he denies wrongdoing and claims defamation, it contributed to his status as a “persona non grata.” Recent X posts (e.g., November 2025) mock him as a “pathetic excuse of a scholar” or tie his views to unrelated rants (e.g., on immigration in a debate clip). Even fellow mythicists distance themselves; in a 2022 review of Varieties of Jesus Mythicism, Carrier critiques the anthology for including “amateur contributions employing dubious claims,” highlighting internal divisions. Lack of Institutional Support: Despite his PhD, Carrier is an independent scholar without a tenure-track position, partly attributed to his reputation. r/AcademicBiblical (2022) threads question if he’s made mythicism “more seriously” taken—consensus: no, it just became “dead air” for dismissal as “bonkers.” Carrier exemplifies the mythicist side’s weaknesses: innovative but evidentially thin arguments, propped up by polemic rather than peer acceptance. |