Mythical character exposed

[Gob]

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.

The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.

He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

Jesus is thought by most historians to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in Judea in the Roman Empire

The claims were made in an article for Free Inquiry called The Fable of the Christ and a book called No Meek Messiah.

In the article and book, Paulkovich says he found an absence of evidence for Jesus in historical texts.

And he says this is surprising despite his ‘global miracles and alleged worldwide fame.’

The 126 texts he studied were all written in the period during or soon after the supposed existence of Jesus, when Paulkovich says they would surely have heard of someone as famous as Jesus - but none mention him.

'When I consider those 126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories, and so many other mysteries and omissions - I must conclude that Christ is a mythical character,’ he writes.

‘"Jesus of Nazareth" was nothing more than urban (or desert) legend, likely an agglomeration of several evangelic and deluded rabbis who might have existed.’

Of the writings he examined, written from the first to third centuries, he found only one book that contained a mention of Jesus - The Jewish Wars by the Roman historian Josephus Flavius written in 95 CE, but he claims it is fabricated.

Paulkovich says the mentions of Jesus were added later by editors, not by Josephus.

Even in the Bible Paulkovich says Paul, often credited with spreading what would become Christianity, never refers to Jesus as a real person.

‘Paul is unaware of the virgin mother, and ignorant of Jesus' nativity, parentage, life events, ministry, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial and harrowing passion,’ he writes.

‘Paul knows neither where nor when Jesus lived, and considers the crucifixion metaphorical.’

He also says that silence from Jesus himself is telling, with no personal accounts being written.

‘Perhaps the most bewildering "silent one" is the mythical super-savior himself, Jesus the Son of God ostensibly sent on a suicide mission to save us from the childish notion of "Adam's Transgression" as we learn from Romans,’ he says.

‘The Jesus character is a phantom of a wisp of a personage who never wrote anything. So, add one more: 127.’

He continues: ‘Christian father Marcion of Pontus in 144 CE denied any virgin birth or childhood for Christ - Jesus' infant circumcision was thus a lie, as well as the crucifixion!

‘Reading the works of second century Christian father Athenagoras, one never encounters the word Jesus (or Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦν, as he would have written) - Athenagoras was thus unacquainted with the name of his savior it would seem.’

And he claims even the book of Mark in the Bible, which contains the story of Christ’s resurrection, was doctored later on.

‘The original booklet given the name "Mark" ended at 16:8, later forgers adding the fanciful resurrection tale,’ he says.

‘Millions should have heard of the Jesus "crucifixion" with its astral enchantments: zombie armies and meteorological marvels recorded not by any historian, but only in the dubitable scriptures scribbled decades later by superstitious yokels.’

Paulkovich’s views will surely prove very controversial, as most scholars do not support the theory that Jesus never existed.

Most agree that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 to 4 BC and who died in 30 to 36 AD.

It is also widely agreed that he was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

[Big RR]

If you were here now you would have been a seasation
Israel in 12 BC had no mass communication...

A Lloyd Weber

[wesw]

the writer seems much more an atheist activist than an objective researcher

[Lord Jim]

the writer seems much more an atheist activist than an objective researcher

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet...

He's certainly no kind of historian; even real historians who are also Atheists don't think much of his "scholarship":

An Open Letter To Michael Paulkovich And Free Inquiry

t seems that your article in Free Inquiry is open to subscribers only. But I can see the header on the Free Inquiry website:

If the story of Jesus were true, ancient writers should have commented on it—yet 126 (and counting) who might have done so, did not.

And I would just love to see a list of those 126 (or more) writers. You see, I've been studying ancient history and literature for a long, long time, and had been under the impression that the number was more like 0. You obviously have a huge brain and know many things which I do not. I've found some of the 126 on a website which quotes you as having said "in a recent interview,"

"Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems none of these writers from first to third century ever heard of Jesus, global miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned"

Great, I finally found the names of some of the 126 (or more) writers whose failure to mention Jesus is downright strange. Okay then, let's take a look at those 9:

Titus. Okay, good: Titus was actually in Judea, he led Roman troops against the Jewish uprising, which he successfully crushed in AD 70. Is it strange that we kind find no mention of Jesus in his writings? Well, no. Because, you see, none of Titus' writings are known to us. Which means that what's strange here -- in my humble opinion -- is that you're talking about examining his writings. Very strange. The primary sources of information about Titus are Josephus (who mentions Jesus), Tacitus (who mentions Christians), Suetonius (ditto), and the 2nd name someone claims you listed off in an interview,

Cassius Dio. Actually, I've almost heard him referred to as Dio Cassius, but why rag on that and imply that you got all this off the back of some cereal box? Let's just call him Dio for the sake of brevity. (And so that people who are familiar with his work, if any such are reading along, will know what we're talking about.) Dio writes a couple of lines about Titus and the Jewish War, in which he makes no mentions of any Jews alive at that time, let alone decades before during the supposed time of Jesus, or Pontius Pilate either.

In fact the only near-contemporary mentions of Pilate known before the 20th century, when an inscription was found which seems to have been made by him, are in the New Testament, and the Jewish authors Josephus (mentions Jesus) and Philo, and Tecitus (mentions Christians). But yeah, it's strange that Dio doesn't mention this one particular Jewish preacher who had 12 whole followers.

Maximus. There's a 2nd-century Athenian philosopher named Maximus. Show me he had ever heard of Judea or Galilee, and then we can talk about why it would be strange for him not to have written about Jesus. The other people I've heard about named Maximus are even more ridiculous in this discussion. (Do you mean the general and gladiator Maximus, who killed Commodus? You know that Maximus is entirely fictional, right?)

Moeragenes. Never heard of him.

Lucian. Now here we have an ancient author from whom an unusually-large volume has survived. The closest any of his works come to Jerusalem or Nazareth is that Adversus Indoctum mocks a Syrian book-collector. What the fuck, Michael? (What the fuck, Free Inquiry? You don't have any fact-checkers?)

Soterichus Oasites. A Soterichus who lived around AD 300 wrote poems about Alexander the Great and Dionysus. Hm, yeah, very strange that he didn't toss any mention of Jesus into those.

Euphrates. That's a river, not a writer.

Marcus Aurelius. He was relatively friendly toward Jews. This may be the strongest straw you have to grasp at. (Why should the religious be the only ones who can grasp at straws and take rhetorical short-cuts?)

Damis of Hierapolis. A Damis was a pupil of Apollonius of Tyana. None of this Damis' work has survived, and none of this Apollonius' either, but Apollonius has sometimes been compared to Jesus so I can see how you got confused.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not picking on you for theological reasons. I'm an atheist, and I'm far from certain that Jesus existed, and I think it's shameful the way that the vast majority of mainstream Biblical scholars avoid any suggestion that there could ever be any reasonable doubt that Jesus existed.

I'm picking on you because I take history seriously, and I've read some ancient literature untranslated, and I don't go around talking out of my ass like you do. It's embarrassing that some people think of me in the same breath as clowns like you, because of my doubts about whether Jesus existed and the way the academics treat the subject and therefore frame the discussion.

So this joker compiles a "list" of people who never referred to Jesus that includes people who would have had no reason to write about him, others whose writings have never been found, and genuinely fictional characters...

I can see how this would be the sort of historical "scholarship" that would be viewed as really impressive by Santa Cruz Pseudo Scientists, but anybody else, not so much...

[wesw]

all it took was a 30 second google search to see that all of his writings were anti-religious themed and that he started with a conclusion and tailored his research to fit his pre determined desired outcome.

[rubato]

He is saying that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Contra Carl Sagan.


Of course the fact that his writings are anti-religious has no bearing on whether he is right or not, either.



yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Bring forth the historical commentators who mention him!

You'd think a geezer pulling party tricks like walking on water, turning water into wine*, and curing leprosy, would rate a mention.



*esp this one.

[rubato]

all it took was a 30 second google search to see that all of his writings were anti-religious themed and that he started with a conclusion and tailored his research to fit his pre determined desired outcome.

Exactly the method used by religious people to prove Jesus did exist. Arsenic for the goose is arsenic for the gander.


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

rube, setting aside whether jesus was divine or not. do you really believe he was a mythical figure?

[liberty]

Bring forth the historical commentators who mention him!

You'd think a geezer pulling party tricks like walking on water, turning water into wine*, and curing leprosy, would rate a mention.



*esp this one.

Gob, those activities would not have attracted a lot of attention; they were common among magicians of the time. It comes down to this: Jesus is real; I choose to believe; it is call faith.

Also the Bible is neither a history book or a science book. It is an instruction manual.

[rubato]

rube, setting aside whether jesus was divine or not. do you really believe he was a mythical figure?

I am guided by the evidence. There is no compelling evidence that a person named "Jesus" with magical powers existed. And there has been a long succession of proven frauds (the shroud of Turin) which suggests that those who believed in him are credulous and/or willfully dishonest.


There is a great deal more evidence of the historical reality of Muhammad.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. 4 historians (granted the names associated may not be the actual writers as such). Paul and the author of Hebrews, that's two more. All are evidence of the factuality of a man named Yeshua.

It's easy isn't it to pick one's "historians" and include/exclude whoever one does not like.

I am currently reading a couple of books about the battles of Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville - all in Tennessee - and each of them fails to mention Chief Stand Watie (or Degataga), a Cherokee brigadier general in the Confederate army. Guess he didn't exist then

Anyway we know Jesus existed - he's in Wikipedia

[rubato]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. 4 historians (granted the names associated may not be the actual writers as such). Paul and the author of Hebrews, that's two more. All are evidence of the factuality of a man named Yeshua.

It's easy isn't it to pick one's "historians" and include/exclude whoever one does not like.

I am currently reading a couple of books about the battles of Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville - all in Tennessee - and each of them fails to mention Chief Stand Watie (or Degataga), a Cherokee brigadier general in the Confederate army. Guess he didn't exist then

Anyway we know Jesus existed - he's in Wikipedia

Mythical historians cannot prove the existence of mythical characters. Do we have holographic writings of any of the above?

yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

you didn t answer the question. whether or not you believe jesus was magical, do you believe he was a real figure, sham or otherwise

[Lord Jim]

Well to be fair to rube, Wes, it looks to me like he did answer your question, in his own rubesque way:

I am guided by the evidence. There is no compelling evidence that a person named "Jesus" with magical powers existed.

First he claims to be be "guided by the evidence" (a claim which is demonstrably and laughably spurious; if you look around at his posts you can see that he believes all sorts of silly things despite evidence being overwhelmingly to the contrary, but laying that aside...)

Then he asserts as a fact (obviously it's only his opinion, but he frequently asserts his opinions though they were facts...but also laying that aside) that there is no compelling "evidence" (the thing he claims to base his conclusions on) that Jesus existed...

I believe the two sentences of his I quoted taken together give you your answer...

Clearly he does not believe that Jesus existed...

If you're looking for some sort of more straight forward, "yes or no" answer from rube, I'm afraid you're likely to be SOL...

Based on a large body of past performance, if he responds now at all, he's much more likely to post something snarky and condescending about your inability to glean his meaning than he is to give you a straight forward answer...

[Big RR]

I have to agree with Lib, miraculous parlor tricks were done by many so-called mystics of the time. Further, even now there are people who assert that they (or someone else) has miraculous powers and are dismissed as idiots. At the time of Jesus (around the end of BC(E) and the beginning of AD/CE), I would bet most people would say the same about those claiming to have witnessed miracles. Someone saying they saw someone walk on water, rise from the dead, etc. would have been dismissed and wouldn't warrant any entry in the chronicles of the time. The crucifixion and death of a common seditionist would in the hinterland of Israel might not even be recorded by the Romans. So the lack of written documentation is hardly surprising.

A few shepherds saying they saw the angels singing on the night he was born, a few people saying they saw a resurrected jesus, etc. would only be recorded by those it was important to--hence the biblical accounts might be the only ones there (except for josephus' mention, which appears to be accepted by many scholars despite paulkovich's claim to the contraryx).

Of course, there are some events that would have been documented--a census around the time of Jesus' birth is not mentioned, nor is there any mention of Herod's slaughter of young boys (and I would think that would have been recorded by jewish scholars, many of whom did not like Herod). But actual historical records of a poor itinerant rabbi who, it was said, could perform miracles (or make people think so) and who was executed for teaching sedition against the roman authorities--I'm not surprised there are few to none. His memory and teachings would have been carried forward only by those who cared.

On a similar note, I have tried to research my family lineage and have found records dating back to around 1742 in Norway, but the trail ends there. Paulkovich might well take this lack of a written record as evidence that I had no ancestors prior to 1742, but I'm pretty sure I did. In fact, I am certain of it.

[Lord Jim]

On a similar note, I have tried to research my family lineage and have found records dating back to around 1742 in Norway, but the trail ends there. Paulkovich might well take this lack of a written record as evidence that I had no ancestors prior to 1742

Excellent point...

That does seem to be the way this "historian's" mind works...

[wesw]

I m sure Zeus was oft mentioned, so at least we know he was real....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Mythical historians cannot prove the existence of mythical characters. Do we have holographic writings of any of the above?

yrs,
rubato

I assume you refer to Gob's list as well? The answer is 'no' for all

[Crackpot]

My brother traced our mothers lineage back to the 14th century far enough for my grandparents lines to actually converge. 13 generations apart on one side 15 on the other iirc.