Did Jesus Exist? Examining the Case for a Mythical Christ
The question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure or a mythological creation has been debated for centuries. While mainstream scholars generally agree that a historical Jesus likely existed, a growing number of researchers argue that the figure of Jesus was entirely mythical, constructed from earlier religious traditions and political agendas. This "mythicist" position, though often dismissed, has been championed by respected scholars such as Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others.
The Lack of Contemporary Evidence
One of the strongest arguments against the historical existence of Jesus is the complete absence of contemporary records. No Roman historian, government record, or eyewitness account from the time of Jesus mentions him. The primary sources we have—namely, the Gospels—were written decades after his supposed death, by unknown authors who were not eyewitnesses.
Prominent historian Richard Carrier, in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), argues that Jesus meets the criteria for being a mythical rather than a historical figure. He points out that the earliest Christian writings, such as the letters of Paul, do not describe Jesus as a recent historical figure but rather as a celestial being revealed through scripture and visions. Carrier applies Bayesian probability analysis to the evidence and concludes that it is more likely than not that Jesus was a mythical construct.
Parallels to Pagan Mythologies
Many mythicists argue that Jesus' story closely parallels those of earlier dying-and-rising gods in the ancient world, such as Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithras. These deities were often born of virgins, performed miracles, were killed, and later resurrected—suggesting that the Jesus story may be another iteration of this common mythological motif.
Scholar Robert M. Price, in The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011), argues that the New Testament narratives are a patchwork of Old Testament prophecies and Pagan mythology. He suggests that Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and divine nature were modeled after pre-existing religious traditions, not historical events.
The Gospels: Anonymous and Contradictory
The four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are our primary sources for the life of Jesus, but they were written decades after his supposed crucifixion, and their authorship remains uncertain. The earliest Gospel, Mark, was likely written around 70 CE, at least 40 years after Jesus’ death. The others followed, each adding theological embellishments and inconsistencies.
Bart Ehrman, a mainstream scholar and agnostic historian, acknowledges that the Gospels are unreliable as historical documents. In Jesus, Interrupted (2009), he highlights contradictions between the Gospels and the theological agendas behind them. While Ehrman believes in a historical Jesus, he concedes that the details of his life are uncertain at best.
Conclusion
The case against Jesus’ historical existence is not based on conspiracy theories but on a critical examination of the evidence—or lack thereof. With no contemporary references, strong mythological parallels, and unreliable Gospel accounts, the Jesus of the New Testament appears more like a constructed theological figure than a historical person. While the debate continues, the mythicist position remains a compelling and legitimate perspective worthy of serious consideration.
What do you think? And why do you think it?