The Historicity of Jesus (Part 5)

This blogger has posted 4 previous times on the historicity of Jesus. Most of the material used for these posts were from skeptical sources that significantly discredit the historical Jesus. Those who question the historicity of Jesus are generally labeled Mythicists by theists and non-theists alike.

Theists who criticize Mythicists generally state that the consensus of scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus. This is true. They further state that to support the Mythicist view is fringe thinking analogous to pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Is this analogy valid? Not when the vast majority of "scholars" are Christians who essentially accept an historical Jesus a priori. To compare these "scholars" with unbiased scientists and physicians is not valid.

Jim Walker in a well-sourced internet article makes some valid points, including:

All claims for Jesus are from hearsay and not from reliable first-person eyewitness accounts. Anyone familiar with court proceedings is aware of the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.

No one knows who wrote the gospels.

No original copies of the New Testament exist. The oldest copies are multi-generational from any originals and were written by Christians, hardly unbiased scribes.

All non-Christian writings of Jesus are from authors who lived after the supposed death of Jesus, thus, are in the hearsay category again.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, wrote the often-quoted Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE, which is after the first gospels were written. Thus, even if the two passages that mention Jesus are authentic (not a given), he may have had access to these Christian documents.

Use of the Talmud to support an historical Jesus is not warranted. Scholars agree that the term "Yeshe" refers not to Jesus but to one of two other Jewish figures either before or after Jesus. Also, the Talmud didn't exist until centuries after Jesus' time, thus making it hearsay.

The supposed letters of Pontius Pilate are fiction.

Not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived during the alleged time of Jesus wrote about him. Thought-provoking, considering there were several in the geographical area at this time.

Even though the New Testament mentions places and people existing at the time of the alleged Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus anymore than can works of fiction that include recognizable locations and make mention of actual people. In addition, errors and unsupported locations further question the reliability of the texts.

In comparing Jesus with other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, etc., there are artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for these others but not for Jesus.

For truly historical people, we have accounts of what they looked like. This is not the case with Jesus and is consistent with Mythicism.

There is just as much evidence for Hercules as there is for Jesus. Hercules is universally recognized as myth.

The Jesus story is similar to other savior stories during the first century and before.

While Jesus may have existed, it is more likely he is mythical.

- - - - -
Bottom line in this discussion:   It makes no difference whether or not Jesus is based on a real person. The character is effectively fictional.