As a secular scholar, I, of course, reject hypotheses involving the Christ of Faith. Critical scholars can only reasonably debate the existence of the so-called Historical Jesus, that figure of the Gospels stripped of all divinity. Most secular scholars of the New Testament believe that this figure certainly existed. I noticed that this is an assumption, however, later finding it to be an unjustified assumption.

See Also: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019).

By Raphael Lataster

University of Sydney

August 2019

It was inevitable. With few offerings written by properly qualified scholars challenging the historicity of Jesus over the years, we now have a comprehensive book on Jesus’ ahistoricity published by a major academic press. Those denying Jesus’ existence in the past have typically been amateurs or scholars of other fields, publishing books – if at all – with popular and vanity presses. Now, however, Brill has published my (I am a Religious Studies scholar specialising in Early Christianity and the Philosophy of Religion) Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse, which argues that agnosticism over Jesus’ historical existence is more than reasonable, and that outright denying Jesus’ historicity is quite fair. Perhaps even more impressive is that the author of the book’s foreword is none other than James Crossley, editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. However, I have been working on this topic for nearly a decade now, overlapping with that other ‘rare but properly qualified’ ahistoricist scholar, Richard Carrier. So what is all the fuss about?

As a secular scholar, I, of course, reject hypotheses involving the Christ of Faith. Critical scholars can only reasonably debate the existence of the so-called Historical Jesus, that figure of the Gospels stripped of all divinity. Most secular scholars of the New Testament believe that this figure certainly existed. I noticed that this is an assumption, however, later finding it to be an unjustified assumption. The vast majority of biblical scholars have ignored the issue of Jesus’ existence for the past hundred years. Now, within five years of each other, there are two comprehensive academic monographs arguing the other way. Those wanting to know why we ought to accept the Historical Jesus’ historicity generally have to make do, if they do not directly engage with the sources themselves, with the specialist scholars merely asserting their opinions, and some popular books, like those recent ones from Ehrman and Casey.

Ehrman

Let us start with the case of New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman who published Did Jesus Exist? in 2012. The book starts quite competently, with Ehrman rightly acknowledging how problematic the sources are. Especially important is that Ehrman recognises that we would prefer numerous, contemporary, detailed, and somewhat disinterested sources, which corroborate others’ accounts without collaboration having taking place – all those things we lack with regards to Jesus. He even downplays the importance of the earliest non-Christian references to Jesus, since they likely just reiterate what Christians at the time believed about Jesus. For example, Ehrman says, “It should be clear in any event that Tacitus is basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay rather than, say, detailed historical research”, and “whether the Testimonium is authentically from Josephus (in its pared-down form) or not probably does not ultimately matter for the question I am pursuing here. Whether or not Jesus lived has to be decided on other kinds of evidence from this” (pp. 52-66).

We can find this out for ourselves, but it is good to hear it from someone trying to defend Jesus’ historicity: the case for Jesus’ existence rests upon Christian authors. Given what we know about early – and later – Christian authors and scribes, this is a bit of a problem. So what does Ehrman think of the Christian sources? What most competent scholars would think. They are terrible sources. They are not contemporaneous, they are not from eyewitnesses, they are biased, full of contradictions, fabrications, and implausible claims. How then can a respected expert in his field like Bart Ehrman use these horrid sources to argue that what are effectively minimalists of the New Testament are completely wrong? Simple: hypothetical sources. Apparently, we can trust these untrustworthy sources because of the sources behind them. Okay, let us verify these sources’ contents. Where are the manuscripts? Nowhere to be found. They are hypothetical sources, after all, we don’t have them, and we can’t even be totally sure they existed. Case closed, then, Jesus definitely existed!

Of course, such reasoning would not fly with competent scholars of related fields, and especially not with a highly logical philosopher, who makes a living off of tearing to shreds her equally logical colleagues’ arguments. To such a highly critical logician, this appeal to hypothetical sources is laughable, pathetic. We can have no idea of the content of these sources had they existed, the true authors, their intent, and so forth. Worse still, we can wonder why it is that Ehrman, a historicist, is allowed to posit hypothetical sources, and so many of them, to bolster his preferred theory. Why can Christians not do this? Indeed, they try! Apologists like William Lane Craig appeal to hypothetical sources to reveal that there is indeed much proof for Jesus’ resurrection. This may sound odd, but if we make exceptions for ourselves, that would be special pleading. So then, why can the mythicist, the one who asserts that Jesus did not exist, not likewise appeal to hypothetical sources? Perhaps there is some long lost Epistle of Paul or some earlier figure where he or she admits that the religion started not with a historical figure, but with a dream of an angelic being. More on this later. Sadly, Ehrman does not feel the need to justify his non-existing sources ‘approach’. Perhaps even attempting to do so would hasten readers catching on.

Apart from his use of hypothetical sources, Ehrman highlights two key points that apparently make Jesus’ existence a sure bet. The first is Paul’s relationships with Peter and James, who surely knew a historical Jesus. The big problem is that we know of this from later documents. Ehrman and other scholars read the later documents into the earlier Epistles. Reading the Epistles without Gospel-tainted glasses will lead to some intriguing possibilities, as we shall soon see. There are other problems, too, such as the general unreliability of the Epistles (just as with the Gospels), and the fact that such passages were tampered with (as Ehrman himself published on; see his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 238-239).

The second is that Jews would apparently never invent a suffering Messiah. This is utter nonsense. Ehrman is wrong in principle and in fact. Judaism is and always was very diverse, and we know about the religious beliefs of only a small fraction of the Jewish population, as is made obvious by Josephus and Ehrman himself. But there is also evidence, thanks to recent discoveries, that several Jews believed in all sorts of different Messiahs, including suffering ones, dying and rising ones, celestial ones, and so forth. And that is what Ehrman brings to the table. Apart from, in the years since, publishing much that undermines his own work in Did Jesus Exist?

Casey

An even worse case for Jesus was made just a few years later by the respected, and now late, Maurice Casey, in his 2014 Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths? Apart from its many rudimentary errors and unscholarly comments (such as an unnecessary remark about one discussant’s sexuality), Casey’s book has nothing substantial to add to the debate. He also relies on hypothetical sources; though, true to form, his hypothetical sources are in Aramaic. They could be in Swahili for all we know. We know nothing. That’s the problem.

Curiously, while Ehrman at least gave the impression that he is a critical scholar, working like other historians, in trying to find the most probable explanations for the available evidence, Casey outright admits, like so many theologians and cryptotheologians, that “the criteria reasonably used by historians writing about important political figures such as Julius Caesar need modification in dealing with the historicity of Jesus” (p. 66). No Casey, you do not get to alter the rules of what is historically probable because you know that your evidence simply isn’t good enough. The other great innovation that Casey brought to the debate is the radically early dating of the Gospels, almost laughably unjustified, as well as the identification of the earliest Gospel writer. Apparently Mark was written by a Mark, because this was “one of the commonest names in the Roman Empire” (p. 82). The less said about Casey’s book, the better.

Agnosticism and an alternative hypothesis

Give the state of the sources, then, as well as the underwhelming – and few – cases presented by respected secular scholars of the New Testament, it is very reasonable to be agnostic about Jesus’ historicity. But if that isn’t fringe enough, consider an alternative to the mainstream Historical Jesus hypothesis. Consider that Christianity began with the belief in a purely Celestial Jesus. Now in principle, this idea cannot be dismissed out of hand. Just as with the Judaisms of the time early Christianities (there was of course much overlap) were very diverse, and there is much about the early years we do not know and will likely never know. But this Celestial Jesus theory, floating around in hyper-sceptical circles for over 100 years, is not just possible. It is, based on the currently available evidence, which is admittedly not much, quite probable.

With the Gospels obviously being products of later forms of Christianity, this hypothesis focuses on the earliest Christian texts, the Pauline and other Epistles. Scholars have long known that Paul’s account of things differs quite a bit from the Gospels’ accounts. Indeed, Paul seems to know little to nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels, and arguably even contradicts the later documents. There are several aspects of the Epistles that help lead one towards the controversial alternative hypothesis. For one, Paul is very open about his source/s: God. He knows what he knows because of direct and indirect revelation from God; the indirect revelation being Jewish – and curiously not other Christian – scriptures. Paul also speaks of Jesus’ sacrifice and triumph occurring “now”, decades after they were meant to. He also describes Jesus as a heavenly figure, who was named after he completed his mission, with Paul knowing little to nothing about Jesus’ recent Earthly sojourn (indeed, what little can be connected to the Earthly Historical Jesus is either fraudulent and/or ambiguous).

Perhaps best of all, Paul, who we all know believed in the existence of sky-demons, spoke of Jesus in a very odd way. 1 Corinthians 2:6-10 has Paul asserting that Jesus was killed by the sky-demons who were not aware of his identity and mission, and apparently wouldn’t have killed Jesus had they known. Those wondering if the archons can refer to earthly powers can do away with such thinking when it is realised that humans would have had ample reason to kill Jesus (for salvation) unlike the demons (who would guarantee their defeat) and remembering that Paul asserted that the human authorities were effectively God’s agents.

Thinking of early Christianity in this way address a lot of the problems with the state of the evidence. It’s hard to have conclusive evidence for a person that didn’t exist. So why would the very different Gospels eventuate? Apart from the fact that this is a ‘problem’ for any hypothesis, the Gospels are simply allegorisations of the earlier teachings, something that scholars are increasingly accepting. Did earlier Jews believe in such Celestial Messiahs? Yes! One need only turn to the fairly recently discovered intertestamental texts, to see that there were Jews who expected a Celestial Messiah who would bring abut somewhat of a spiritual victory; which makes sense as the poor Jews would have no hope of defeating the mighty Roman Empire, and most could not access the Temple. Philo even, directly or indirectly, connects this figure, his Logos, with the name ‘Jesus’. For more on all this, please read Questioning the Historicity of Jesus.

Interestingly, these ideas are gaining ground. Scholars in fields related to New Testament are increasingly adopting agnostic views about Jesus. Even within the field, there are scholars willing to be agnostic or sympathetic to agnosticism. I fully expect that a torrent of abuse will come my way. Though I expect that, like the Old Testament minimalists, I, and the few like me, will eventually be vindicated, fairly quickly. Even in the early years of my career, the likes of Brill, Springer, Cambridge, and Oxford are seeing the value in my research. And I see many younger New Testament scholars asking more questions about the reliability of the extant sources and oral transmission and memory. The time is ripe for change.