Essay:Critics of the historicity of Jesus

Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus … What the myth theory [of ] denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded. Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus … he should never be considered its foundation. As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing. Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

This list in general (but not specifically) presents scholars and commentators who assert (or are at least sympathetic to the viewpoint) that Christianity and the New Testament writings can be explained without any reference to a historical Jesus. For example who holds that the historicity of Jesus is more probable but writes, "the rise and growth of Christianity can be examined and explained without the need to reconstruct a particular historical Jesus."

Viewpoint color legend
Some of the leading scholars who represent the various viewpoints on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus" are:

The [red|red] viewpoint—as asserted by —is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction…"

The [red|yellow] viewpoint is given by Raphael Lataster, who writes:

The [green|black] viewpoint is held by Bart Ehrman and many other biblical scholars who embrace the hypothesis that (as described by Raphael Lataster):

The [red|blue] viewpoint subspectrum
[W]riters who are often placed in the mythicist camp present a slightly different view, namely, that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity, a religion rooted in the mythical Christ-figure invented by its original adherents. Negative as these [minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. Richard Carrier asserts that the [red|blue] viewpoint subspectrum is defined by three propositions.

A precise historicity theory would look very similar to Carrier's minimal theory of historicity but perhaps with modifications and caveats e.g.: Perhaps some day in the future.. in a peer reviewed monograph for the defense of the historicity theory, published by a respected academic press, this might be found.
 * Per said man, He would in actual fact have been named Yeshu or Yeshua, as Jesus was the Latinised version of the name, which a historical Jesus would not have used.
 * Per said followers, this is the movement which grew into what we now know as the Christian faith. It is otherwise theoretically possible that there might have been some other movement of people following a Yeshua who was executed while meanwhile Christianity arose from a mythical Yeshua/Jesus.
 * etc.

Historicists run the risk of being falsely labeled as Mythicists if their dating of the birth and death of Jesus does not comply with Mainstream scholarship that recognizes that there was a historical Jesus, but with only two events supported by consensus: Jesus' baptism, and his crucifixion.

The [red|red] viewpoint subspectrum
Despite countless variations … the basic thesis of every competent mythologist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized, just as many other gods were [also historicized]… Richard Carrier gives the following caveat for the [red|red] viewpoint subspectrum:

Robertson, Smith, and Dujardin contend that the story of Jesus is the humanization of a pre-Christian God Jesus (Jeshua or Joshua), who had been worshipped in Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews, and whose cult lingered after the victory of Jahveh in obscure groups, mainly in Galilee [...] Drews believes that the Messiah-figure in Isaiah is the source of the myth, and puts an astral interpretation on many details. Couchoud finds the origin in Paul's alleged vision, and Rylands (The Beginnings of Gnostic Christianity, 1941) looks to pre-Christian Gnostic speculations. Bolland, De Evangelische Jozua; Rylands, The Evolution of Christianity; Rylands, The Beginnings of Gnostic Christianity; Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew … held that Christianity began variously among Hellenized Jewish settlements throughout the Diaspora, with allegorized Jewish elements being made almost unrecognizable by their intermingling with gnostic mythemes. Prior to Wells, the mythicist whose views were closest to my own was Paul-Louis Couchoud who wrote in the 1920s, though I took my own fresh run at the question and drew very little from Couchoud himself.

A

 * – English archaeologist

B

 * – American atheist activist and musician


 * – German philosopher and historian
 * – French sociologist
 * – Dutch theologian
 * – Dutch philosopher and scholar
 * – Swiss journalist and lawyer
 * – Danish literary critic
 * – Irish Roman Catholic priest

C

 * – English journalist, radical and secularist
 * – English socialist poet, philosopher and anthologist


 * – French philosopher
 * – English artist, etcher and freethought writer

D

 * – British Biblical scholar
 * – Canadian writer
 * – German historian and philosopher
 * – French novelist and writer
 * – French scientist

E

 * – Swedish linguist

F

 * – American film director

G

 * – British writer
 * – Canadian atheist and freethought writer


 * – American freethought writer
 * – English geologist
 * Charles Guignebert – French historian of religions

H

 * – Canadian theologian and writer
 * – French journalist

J

 * – German orientalist
 * – English historian

K

 * – German Protestant theologian
 * – Japanese socialist and anarchist
 * – Russian scholar of classical antiquity
 * – Russian historian of Judaism and Christianity
 * – American theosophist
 * – American theologian and the last man in the United States jailed for blasphemy


 * – American biblical scholar and historian

L

 * – American patent attorney


 * – British freethinker
 * – Dutch theologian
 * – Literary historian, critic, and philosopher of religion

M

 * – American rationalist and secularist
 * – American philosopher
 * – English poet and spiritualist


 * – American atheist writer
 * – Irish Chartist, mythologist and secularist writer

N

 * – Polish social and political activist

O

 * – French philosopher

P

 * Minas Papageorgiou – Greek journalist and author
 * – Dutch theologian and historian

R

 * – Russian scholar of classical antiquity and religion
 * – French archaeologist


 * – American lawyer and philosopher


 * – British academic of philosophy, mathematics, and logic.


 * Jonathan Rutherford –


 * Nikolai Rumyantsev (1892–1956) – Russian historian
 * L. Gordon Rylands (1862-1942) – British criminologist and writer

S

 * Acharya S – American writer of pseudohistory
 * – British Congregational minister


 * – American professor of mathematics
 * – Swiss reformed theologian
 * Narve Strand –

T

 * – Freethinker and radical


 * – American skeptic

V

 * – French archaeologist
 * – French historian and philosopher

W

 * – American feminist writer


 * – American lawyer
 * – English metaphysician and critic
 * – Russian historian

Critics of the historicity of the Christ
[ ] subtitle of the first edition of The Golden Bough was ‘A Study in Comparative Religion’, whereas that of the second edition was ‘A Study in Magic and Religion’.… Although Jesus of Nazareth is never mentioned—Frazer had no stomach for religious polemic—only the slowest reader could fail to make the connection: if Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Dionysus are now only barbaric reminders of a backward age, can Jesus [the Christ] be any different? The conclusion follows that Christianity must also take its place on the same shelf as these outworn creeds.

1835:  – German liberal Protestant theologian and writer

1842:  – German philosopher and historian

1904:  – German Protestant theologian

1906:  – German critical scholar who wrote a history of the research on the "Life of Jesus" [Leben-Jesu-Forschung]

1909:  – American freethinker and writer

1997:

2021:

Critics of biblical scholars and what the gospels say about Jesus
[Hector Avalos takes issue with] Biblical scholars who simply accept (at least in part, as supernatural claims may be omitted) what the gospels say about Jesus, and also takes issue with scholars “privileging” the texts.… Avalos claims that Biblical scholarship is primarily a religionist enterprise and also criticises the use of the Bible as a reliable source of history.


 * — historian and writer


 * William E. Arnal — professor of religion and classics, New York University


 * — biblical scholar and writer


 * Richard Carrier — historian and writer


 * Philip R. Davies — emeritus professor of biblical studies, University of Sheffield


 * Tom Dykstra — independent scholar


 * Bart Ehrman — professor of the New Testament, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and writer

"[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn’t be: “How many historians reject mythicism?” but “How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?”"
 * David Fitzgerald — writer


 * Neil Godfrey — primary contributor for the blog Vridar


 * Raphael Lataster — scholar of religious studies and writer


 * Michael Lockwood — scholar and writer


 * Justin Meggitt — Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge


 * Richard C. Miller — scholar of Christian origins and writer


 * Emanuel Pfoh — professor of history, National University of La Plata


 * Robert M. Price — theologian and writer


 * Thomas L. Thompson — emeritus biblical scholar and theologian


 * Thomas S. Verenna — independent researcher


 * Tim Widowfield — regular co-contributor to Vridar

Critics of mythicism scholars

 * Richard Carrier


 * Neil Godfrey


 * Justin Meggitt

Critics of Antiquities 18.3.3 as a wholesale Interpolation

 * Ken Olson, ‘Eusebius and the “Testimonium Flavianum”’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (1999), pp. 305–22. Olson cites Tessa Rajak, J. Neville Birdsall, and Per Bilde (‘Eusebius and the “Testimonium Flavianum”’, p. 306)
 * Ken Olson, ‘A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum’, in Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Scott (eds.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (Cambridge: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), pp. 97–114
 * Ivan Prchlík, ‘Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty’, in Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), pp. 77–152 and 280–6
 * Nicholas P. L. Allen, Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020), 98–228
 * Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), p. 333
 * Paul Hopper, ‘A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63’, in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (eds.), Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), pp. 147–71
 * Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), pp. 64–7
 * Christopher M. Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion.” The Journal of Biblical Theology 4, no. 3 (2021): 139–162
 * Fausto Parente, ‘Sulla doppia trasmissione, filologica ed ecclesiastica, del testo di Flavio Giuseppe: Un contributo alla storia della ricezione della sua opera nel mondo cristiano’, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura religiosa 36 (2000), pp. 9–25
 * Louis Feldman, ‘On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus’, in Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schachter (eds.), New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 13–30
 * J. Carleton Paget also notes that H. Schreckenberg and K. Schubert ‘tentatively’ rejected the passage as a complete Christian interpolation, see J. Carleton Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, Journal of Theological Studies 52.2 (2001), pp. 539–624 (583).
 * Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), pp. 332–42
 * Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Amherst: Prometheus, 2003), pp. 38–9 and 90
 * Detering, Falsche Zeugen, pp. 19–41
 * Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 192–202.
 * Eric Eve, Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), p. 170.
 * Jurgen Roloff, The Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. John Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
 * Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89
 * S. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33
 * Kurt L. Noll, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus,” in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), ‘Is this not the Carpenter?’ The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233–266 (p. 250, n. 56)
 * Yan Changyou, “Yesu – chuanshuo zhong de xugou renwu,” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 2 (1983): 122–128
 * Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263
 * Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Amherst: Prometheus, 2003), pp. 38–9 and 90
 * Detering, Falsche Zeugen, pp. 19–41
 * Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 192–202.
 * Eric Eve, Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), p. 170.
 * Jurgen Roloff, The Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 2: The Variety and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, trans. John Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
 * Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89
 * S. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33
 * Kurt L. Noll, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus,” in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), ‘Is this not the Carpenter?’ The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233–266 (p. 250, n. 56)
 * Yan Changyou, “Yesu – chuanshuo zhong de xugou renwu,” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 2 (1983): 122–128
 * Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263
 * S. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33
 * Kurt L. Noll, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus,” in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), ‘Is this not the Carpenter?’ The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233–266 (p. 250, n. 56)
 * Yan Changyou, “Yesu – chuanshuo zhong de xugou renwu,” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 2 (1983): 122–128
 * Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263
 * Yan Changyou, “Yesu – chuanshuo zhong de xugou renwu,” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 2 (1983): 122–128
 * Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263
 * Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263

Quotable quotes
[T]here have always been scholars who either wondered whether or positively doubted that Jesus of Nazareth, the man toward whom Christ-following orients itself, actually existed. Such doubts and propositions are all welcome in historical research, along with every other hypothesis about the nature (thoughts, intentions, actions, teaching) of this Jesus, if he did exist.... History is not religion, and its practitioners cannot be preachers, advocates, or polemicists.

[T]he entire history of Christianity, its origins, and the origins and original meaning of its scriptures, entirely depends on the question of historicity. That is beyond trivial. So how do we proceed? We should start by examining the best case for both sides. And see which side has the sounder premises and logic, when everything is added up, nothing straw-manned, nothing swept under the rug. When all fallacies and falsehoods removed, from both sides, what remains? … We may end up simply not knowing whether Jesus really existed or not. But I put it to you, that an honest and unbiased inquiry, will not end up in certainty that he did.

I have long searched for good cases for the Historical Jesus. I sought fairly recent, peer-reviewed academic books or articles, solely/primarily focussed on arguing for Jesus’ historicity, written by secular scholars in relevant fields. Not one source met these criteria. I would have loved the opportunity to critique books focused on this topic written by a James Crossley or an Aaron W. Hughes, and published with Oxford University Press, but such books – perhaps like Jesus – do not exist; so I have settled for two popular books written by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey.

Listen, it's all very easy: the only objectively verifiable facts are in the texts - in the original MSS, in their original language. All the rest is interpretation

Thomas, John, Marcion - and then Mark, and Luke\Matthew. That's the order, and all of it can be demonstrated, and that the canonicals are dependent on Thomas has been demonstrated as nauseam already. What else needs to be done?

And who gives a damn about "Paul" - he has nothing to say, and Acts is the most obvious falsification of them all