Few scholars hold that Jesus never existed at all. However, an argument from consensus is a logical fallacy of the highest order, so one should be prepared to discuss issues held by minority groups, since they, more than those belonging to majority groups, have a habit of believing that they are right and everyone else is sadly and badly mistaken. There's no substitute for being the underdog in order to heighten one's certainty.
There are several different permutations of the `Jesus never existed' school. Some assert that a man called Jesus did exist early in the first century and some even question that most basic `fact'. Of course all these positions hold that everything written about Jesus in the New Testament is either fiction or fraud. The writers neither knew nor cared about the `historical' Jesus. Everything is totally invented.
The most famous proponent of these views is G.A. Wells. His books are widely available. Robert Price has similar views, which may be read on the internet, particularly in his essay Christ a fiction. I will use this piece as a starting point since it is accessable and appears to be representative.
Jesus Never Existed?
Price's argument is centred on the premise that "In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype". Therefore, since "The more closely a supposed biography ... corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth", we can conclude that Jesus was totally a myth.
I have several problems with this. First, Price does not demonstrate his claims. He merely lists some mythical figures and claims that they bear a striking resemblance to Jesus. He writes: "In many myths, the savior's body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappear alive a few days later." Which myths? When were they written? What are the scholarly sources? Surely not Kersey Graves? The onus of proof here falls squarely on the shoulders of the mythicist and until Price elaborates on his claims he is going to have a very sore back indeed.
Second, in the cases which I have seen, the myths bear a surprisingly poor resemblance to Jesus, given the hype that they receive from such articles as Price's. Glenn Miller capably demonstrates in his article that many of the claims are exaggerated at best and totally false at worst. Price's prime examples don't even appear convincing - Padmasambhava, who lived in the 8th century AD, Apollonius of Tyana, whose story dates from no earlier than 220 AD (both of these, of course, post-date Jesus), Hercules and Gautama Buddha (please point out the similarities...I just don't see them).
Third, even when the myths bear some small resemblance, it is a `theological', and not historical, resemblance. "It was because of the legend of Osiris that Egyptians believed they had the right to be transformed and to live in the afterlife". There appears to be a theme here common with Christian doctrine, but the existence of Jesus cannot be doubted on this basis - only the truth of the doctrine of afterlife (in any case, the `doctrines' are so dissimilar in even the most basic detail that dependence must be seriously doubted). A common fallacy is to `prove' some doctrine wrong (inerrency, god, resurrection etc) and then conclude that Jesus didn't exist. `Proving' that the resurrection is copied off some other myth does not prove that Jesus didn't exist, which is what Price seems to be trying to do in the second and third points in his article.
Paul's Silence
Even if none of the miracles happened, we would still possess quite a detailed portrait of Jesus. Price says that even the teachings of Jesus are probably mythical (presumably invented by the great myth-maker in the sky). It is true that Paul mentions only a few teachings of Jesus. He obviously has a higher interest in theology and philosophy than in history. Perhaps Paul didn't mention much about Jesus because he didn't know much about Jesus? Paul seems to have thought that his experience of the risen Christ was enough for him to get by. Demonstrating that Paul didn't know or didn't care much about the historical Jesus doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist. At most it tells us something about Paul's own experience and his theology. Paul does occasionally allude to Jesus' teachings - 1 Cor 7:10-11, 9:14, 11:23, 1 Thess 5 (which cannot "easily be shown on other grounds to be non-Pauline and later than the gospels") - but, on the whole, he neglects to, which proves nothing.
The Passion Narratives and Authors
Price then points out that the passion stories are highly dependent on Psalm 22. Again, this proves nothing, except that the authors of the gospels greatly regarded the Jewish scriptures, to the extent that they were willing to write some of the scriptures which they considered relevant into the story. Price's idea that the story was totally read out of the Old Testament is far less likely than the possibility of Mark `theologising' history. Sometimes its tough to separate the `real' Jesus from the theologised one, but only in matters of detail and not in the general facts. Price forgets that many of the New Testament documents are primarily written to Jews in order to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. Thus all the empty-tomb arguments in the world would not convince the Jews of the resurrection if it couldn't be shown to be "according to the scriptures". A slide show of the crucifixion would not convince them that the Messiah was crucified if they couldn't see in their Bible that it had to happen that way. The writers are trying to prove that the Messiah died on the cross, not that Jesus from Galilee died on the cross.
All this is obvious from Peter's speech recorded in Acts 2:14-36. Peter may have actually spoken a speech like this or Luke may have made it up. Either way, the speech illustrates the type of apologetic which the early church used: heaps of scripture quotes which `demonstrate' that Jesus was the Messiah, and only a passing mention of miracles and history. Luke quite clearly believed Jesus was a recent historical figure and yet he persists with this very Jewish type of apologetic, since this was the type of `evidence' which the Jews were interested in.
Although the gospel authors sometimes skilfully weave the scriptures into Jesus' story, these fulfilled `prophecies' are often quite cumbersome (The stories of Judas' death are probably the worst) and perhaps even non-existent. Paul says "according to the scriptures" and then doesn't say which passage he means. Perhaps he doesn't really know any relevant passages but needs to validate his message, so he makes his claim anyway, a bit like making claims about myths without referencing them. The nature of the New Testament looks very much like the writers had to go searching for `prophecies' for a crucifixion and resurrection where there weren't really any and so they fudged a few Psalms into the story in order to demonstrate Jesus' Messiahship and turn the "folly of the cross" into a glossy brochure for evangelism.
So the crucifixion is a case of the historical data `creating' the prophecy, not the other way around. Prophecies were required and the evangelists `found' them. (Note that, in some obvious cases, the `prophecy' seems to have created the event. Matthew's stories of the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are prime examples).
An Unlikely Scenario and Impossible Demands
Price seems to be suggesting the existence of a community which held the Jewish Scriptures in the highest regard, and yet were still willing to use stories (particularly a crucifixion and resurrection) from obscure pagan deities as the foundation for their defining myth. This community seems to have conveniently laid low, totally unnoticed for several decades (centuries?) before bursting into a zealous evangelistic crusade around the ancient world and proclaiming an historical figure from barely a generation before. This is special pleading of the highest order.
What is the earliest evidence we have for an historical Jesus? Mark was written sometime near 70 AD. The hypothetical sayings source Q was almost certainly in existence before this, but being a sayings source, like the later Gospel of Thomas, it contains little historical information. Q does associate Jesus with John the Baptist, who indisputedly lived in about 28 AD. Jesus also interacts with Pharisees in Q. The Pharisees became an identifiable group in the 2nd century BC, but they gained their significant authority after Shammai and Hillel became the leaders of the two Pharisee movements, after about 8 AD. The emphasis on Pharisees in Q is consistent with a date of after this.
Of course, these two examples will do nothing to convince Price, who will reply that Q is simply early evidence of the old Jesus myth being tied down to a particular time an place. One begins to wonder if anything would convince Price of the historicity of Jesus. Say we discovered a private letter between Peter and his mother-in-law: "Dear Mum, how are you? I remember when Jesus healed you...blah blah... Love, Rocky". What is the likelihood of (a) Peter, a fisherman, writing such a letter, (b) it being circulated, (c) us being able to date to high precision to 34 AD and (d) Dr. Price accepting it as genuine? Pretty slim. What evidence would Price realistically expect for a non-miraculous, slightly controversial teacher-preacher from Galilee called Jesus who was crucified in around 30 AD (Q plus a watered-down passion narrative)? Obviously we wouldn't expect a mention in a contemporary history. Does he want an objective, non-legendary, biography by a non-believer? Surely that is unreasonable, since Price himself insists that legends spring up almost immediately around a religious figure, and besides, one would question why would a non-believer would bother. Anyway, Price admits himself that he still wouldn't believe, since "eyewitness testimony, especially of unusual events, is the most unreliable of all".
Price has given us examples of men creating myths but none of a myth, whose historical foundations are lost, creating an historical man. He loosely refers to a book (Vansina) in order to show that this happens. This is really a crucial part of his argument - that `myth actualisation' is possible - but he gives no details. Maybe we'll have to wait for the next installment.
Jesus Existed?
The greatest testimony to a real, recent founder of Christianity is the sudden existence of the church. As mentioned above, religious movements do not pop out of dormant myths. However, Price will probably find some obscure bunch of fanatics in medieval Peru where this appears to have happened and then draw the analogy ... "it happened once, it can happen again", just like Sabbatai Sevi and the miracle explosions. The overwhelming pattern of history shows that religious movements have real, living founders whose dates are known and fixed. The exceptions are, of course, those religions which began before well defined time-keeping existed, for example Judaism and Egyptian religion. Religious leaders from cultures of high civilisation are not born from myths and do not die completely into myths.
Why is there no evidence of any Christian movement dating before 30 AD? Admittedly, this is an argument from silence, but Price's argument with no evidence is more speculative by far. Price is interested in common patterns. Here's one: a leader teaches, then dies, and a movement, which was already established during the life of the founder, blossoms immediately afterwards. For Jesus, this pattern is far more believable than the alternative of some myth pattern.
How does Price explain James the brother of Jesus? James must have been quite upset to discover that his brother was a myth and Paul would have been understandably worried to hear James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, talking about his imaginary brother. To suggest that James was only the spiritual brother of Jesus is special pleading. Why doesn't Paul call Peter a "brother of the Lord" as well? Even Josephus understands that James was the literal brother of Jesus (Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1).
Conclusion
In this article I have attempted to show that (a) Price's arguments against the existence of Jesus don't hold much water, (b) the New Testament data is adequately explained by assuming a real Jesus who was crucified in about 30 AD, without needing to suppose an earlier myth, and (c) Price demands unrealistic evidence, even for the most basic historical Jesus stripped of all the `mythic' material. Albert Schweitzer, whom Price seems to esteem, discribed such `scholarly' attempts to create a liberal Jesus as like a man who insists on carrying water in a leaky bucket from a far off well in order to water a garden lying beside a stream. Price's non-Jesus fares no better. Judging by the final part of Price's article, the incoherent anti-Christian babble which is totally unrelated to the question of the existence of Jesus, one must begin to question Price's ability to separate his `scholarship' from his quite obvious personal dislike of what he perceives to be mainstream Christianity. Price's theory of a non-historical Jesus seems more like a desperate attempt to pull the historical carpet out from under the feet of those despised Christians than an attempt to engage in serious scholarship.
Price has become overpowered by his own analogies. He takes bits of, among others, Sabbatai Sevi, Osiris, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Superboy, King Arthur, Bruce Chilton's friends, Hillary Clinton and Joe Camel. He mixes all these into one big pot and out pops an explanation for Jesus. He claims that anything is possible when a group of simple-minded religionists are involved. The pages of history are full of such stories and the Jesus story is just another example. The same pages are also full of single-minded researchers, so obsessed with their own studies and so dismissive of everyone else's work, that they also convince themselves of whatever they want to believe. They too `know' that they are right. Perhaps the former are merely the followers of the latter?
John Clark
Comments? Mail me