Jesus myth hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Jesus myth" links here. For a comparison between Jesus Christ and pagan mythology see Jesus Christ and comparative mythology.

A series of articles on
Jesus Christ and Christianity Chronology • Virgin Birth Ministry • Miracles • Parables Death • Resurrection Second Coming • Christology Names and titles • Relics • Active obedience
Cultural and historical background Aramaic • Race Genealogy of Jesus
Perspectives on Jesus Biblical Jesus • Religious Christian • Jewish Islamic • Scientology Historicity • In myth Research: historical • mythic Yuz Asaf
Jesus in culture Depiction • Sexuality This box: view • talk • edit

The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Christ myth or the Jesus myth^[1] is an argument against the historicity of Jesus. It proposes that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels mythologically parallels the mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities, and that this would indicate that the figure of Jesus is a euhemerisation, or an ahistorical construct of various forms of ancient mythology. There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons.

The hypothesis was first proposed by historian and theologian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century and was influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. It has recently been popularized by a number of authors including Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price. The theory is actively discussed on the internet, both on websites and on Usenet.^[2] However, modern scholarly discussion and support is very limited.^[3][4][5][6]

Contents 1 History of the hypothesis 2 Early proponents 3 Recent proponents 4 Specific arguments of the hypothesis 4.1 Early non-Christian references to Jesus 4.1.1 Earliest recorded references 4.1.2 Apparent omissions in early records 4.2 The New Testament epistles 4.3 The influence of the Old Testament 4.4 Parallels with Mediterranean mystery religions 4.5 Historiography and methodology 5 Scholarly response 5.1 Specific criticisms 6 See also 7 Footnotes 8 Further reading 8.1 Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory 8.2 Supporting a historical Jesus 9 External links 9.1 Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory 9.2 Supporting a historical Jesus

[edit] History of the hypothesis

The term Jesus myth covers a broad range of ideas which share the common claim that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels was not based on a historical person. Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship resulting from the quest for the historical Jesus, particularly the work of Bruno Bauer, which drew in part from the burgeoning field of mythography in the work of writers such as Max Müller. Mythography continued to influence 20th century philosophy and anthropology, for example, in Arthur Drews, and Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death, and rebirth of the sun. James Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a dying and reviving god and its connection to the regeneration of the earth in springtime.^[7] Frazer did not doubt the historicity of Jesus, however, stating, "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth... The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are ... unworthy of serious attention."^[7] The earlier works by George Albert Wells drew on the Pauline Epistles and the lack of early non-Christian documents to argue that the Jesus figure of the Gospels was symbolic, not historical. Earl Doherty proposed that Jewish mysticism influenced the development of a Christ myth, while John M. Allegro proposed that Christianity began as shamanic religion based on the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms.^[8] Most recently Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy have popularized the Jesus-myth concept in their book The Jesus Mysteries.^[9] Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea that Jesus's existence is legendary is itself as old as the New Testament, pointing to 2 John 1:7, though scholars of the period believe that this passage refers to docetism, the belief that Jesus lacked a genuinely physical body, and not the belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.^{[10][11][12][13][14][15]}

[edit] Early proponents

Two early proponents of the idea that Jesus was a mythical character were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis, radical French Enlightment thinkers who published books in the 1790s that argued Christ was based upon a combination of Persian and Babylonian mythology.^[16][17][18]

The first scholarly proponent was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism and Gnostic mysticism. Other versions of the theory developed under Bible scholars such as A. D. Loman and G. I. P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were fictions written to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity evolved from Gnosticism and that Jesus was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about God.^{[citation needed]}

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favor of the Jesus-myth hypothesis, ranging from the highly speculative to the more scholarly. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which brought together the scholarship of the day in defense of the idea that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory. In Why I Am Not a Christian (1927), Bertrand Russell stated that even if Jesus existed, which he doubted, the public does not "know anything" about him. Others, like Joseph Wheless in his 1930 Forgery In Christianity,^[19] went even further and claimed there was an active effort to forge documents to make the myth seem historical beginning as early as the 2nd century.

While aspects of the theory were influential, most mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion that Jesus was little more than a fiction, arguing that the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles contained some reliable information about the events they describe.

[edit] Recent proponents

In recent years, the Jesus myth hypothesis has also been advocated by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, who are both popular writers on mysticism, in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Another proponent is Earl Doherty.

There are many different views regarding the nature of the early texts. Doherty suggests that Jesus is a historicised mythic figure created out of the Old Testament, whom the early Christians experienced in visions. Joseph Atwill, on the other hand, argues that Jesus is the deliberate and malefic creation of powerful Romans of the family of Vespasian, who sought to divide and destroy Judaism. In Atwill's view the historical person behind Jesus is Vespasian's son Titus, and the gospels are a complex allegory of his conquest of Judea.^{[citation needed]}

Doherty disagrees with the mainstream scholars on the strength of the case against the theory, and comments that the widespread "contempt" in which the theory is held "is not to be mistaken for refutation." He states that "interests, both religious and secular, have traditionally mounted a campaign against it",^[20] and states that mainstream scholarship is guilty of a "notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case",^[21] leading to "the non-professional scholar" and "well-informed amateur on the internet" becoming those who he regards as "quite educated (meaning largely self-educated) in biblical research".^[21]

Advocates of the Jesus-myth theory also do not agree on the dating and meaning of the early Christian texts, with advocates like Doherty holding to traditional scholarly dating that puts the gospels toward the end of the first century, and others, like Hermann Detering (The Fabricated Paul), arguing that the early Christian texts are largely forgeries and products of the middle to late second century.

A special case is Robert M. Price, a biblical scholar, who does not style himself as a Jesus-myth proponent but tries to demonstrate that if we apply the critical methodology (which has been developed in the area) with "ruthless consistency" then we should come to complete agnosticism regarding Jesus' historicity^[22], and that the burden of proof is on those holding to Jesus's historicity.^[23]

Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than completely made-up myth.^[3][4][5][6] or a composite of more than one person.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Specific arguments of the hypothesis

[edit] Early non-Christian references to Jesus

For more details on this topic, see Historicity of Jesus#Greco-Roman sources.

Three early writers are typically cited in support of the actual existence of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the authenticity of the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus. They claim that Tacitus and Suetonius drew their information from Christians and so are not independent evidence for the life of Jesus, a view usually accepted by biblical scholars.^[24] Many proponents of the Jesus-myth hypothesis highlight the lack of documents, other than Christian documents, that make reference to Jesus until the end of the first century and note the survival of writings by a number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians who wrote in the first century but which lack mention of events described in the Gospels, taking this as evidence that Jesus was invented later. Opponents of the hypothesis argue that arguments from silence are unreliable.^[25]

[edit] Earliest recorded references

The earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament, Apostolic Fathers and the NT Apocrypha). Of the few references outside of Christian documents:

• The Antiquities of Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), written in 93 CE contain two references to Jesus. The text comprising the first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, states that Jesus was the founder of a sect, but the authenticity of the passage is disputed. Grammatical analysis indicates significant differences with the passages that come before and after it, while some phrases would be inconsistent with a non-Christian author like Josephus. This leads most scholars to believe the Jesus reference was either altered or added by persons other than Josephus. However, several scholars have proposed that the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable.^[26] The second reference states that in the year 62 CE, the newly appointed high priest "convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought them a man called James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."^[25][27] However, Kenneth Humphreys has argued that this refers to a different person also called Jesus (Jesus, son of Damneus or Jesus ben Damneus) who was made High Priest ^[28] The fact Josephus describes John the Baptist in clear, unsensational terms in a passage that does not mention Jesus, is also seen as evidence he was not aware of Jesus, at least as a figure of any striking importance.
• Tacitus (circa 117) in the context of the Great Fire of Rome refers to "some people, known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by the order of Pontius Pilate. But this deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again."^[29] Critics state that there is no way to tell where Tacitus got the information for this passage and state there are hints in the passage that suggest that the information did not come from Roman records.^[25]
• Suetonius, who wrote in the second century, made reference to unrest among the Jews of Rome under Claudius caused by "instigator Chrestus".^[30] This has sometimes been identified with Jesus Christ, though in this case it must refer to indirect posthumous effects and gives no biographical information. Critics argue that "Chrestus" was in fact very common Greek name and may have been a person of that name living under Claudius rather than a misspelling of Christ.
• There are references to Christians in the letters of Pliny the Younger^[31], but they give no specific information about the founder of this movement.
• The Babylonian Talmud contains several references that have been traditionally identified with Jesus of Nazareth. However, whether these Talmudic verses actually refer to Jesus of Nazareth or to various other persons that were only later identified with Jesus and with each other remains controversial.^[32] If the identification is accepted, Jesus is described as a heretic ("min") but nowhere in the Rabbinic literature is it suggested that he was not a historical figure.^[25]

[edit] Apparent omissions in early records

Justus of Tiberias wrote at the end of the first century a history of Jewish kings, with whom the gospels state Jesus had interacted. Justus' history does not survive, but Photius, who read it in the 9th century, stated that it did not mention "the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him."^[33] The Jewish historian Philo, who lived in the first half of the 1st century also fails to mention Jesus, as do other major contemporary writers^[34] who might have been expected to refer to someone who is meant to have attracted such devotion and performed such extraordinary acts.

[edit] The New Testament epistles

The authentic letters of Paul of Tarsus are among the earliest surviving Christian writings. The epistles ascribed to Paul do not discuss Jesus's life and ministry in level of detail used by the Gospels, though they do make several claims that he was human; for instance, "... concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh..",^[35] "... By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ..."^[36] or "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified..".^[37] Barnett^[38] lists 15 details gleaned from Paul's letters including: 1) descent from Abraham, 2) direct descent from David, 3) 'born of a woman', 4) lived in poverty, 5) born and lived under the law, 6) had a brother called James, 7) led a humble life style, 8) ministered primarily to Jews, etc.

G. A. Wells suggests that the level of discussion of the historical Jesus in the Pauline epistles, except for the Pastorals, as well as in Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, the Johannine epistles and Revelation supports his position. In these works, Wells argues, Jesus is presented as "a basically supernatural personage only obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past".^[39] Wells considers this to be the original Christian view of Jesus, based not on the life of a historical figure but on the personified figure of Wisdom as portrayed in Jewish wisdom literature.

A more radical position is taken by Earl Doherty, who holds that these early authors did not believe that Jesus had been on Earth at all. He argues that the earliest Christians accepted a Platonic cosmology that distinguished a "higher" spiritual world from the Earthly world of matter, and that they viewed Jesus as having descended only into the "lower reaches of the spiritual world".^[40] Doherty also suggests that this view was accepted by the authors of the Pastoral epistles, 2 Peter, and various second-century Christian writings outside the New Testament. Doherty contends that apparent references in these writings to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should in fact be regarded as allegorical metaphors.^[41] Opponents regard such interpretations as forced and erroneous eg in the Pastoral letter to Timothy the author speaks of Jesus as being 'revealed in the flesh'.^[42]

Mythicists claim significance that Paul never uses the term "Jesus of Nazareth", never claims Jesus was crucified at Calvary or buried in Jerusalem, never accuses Pilate of crucifying him, and insists that Cephas and James never added to his knowledge of the Gospel.

[edit] The influence of the Old Testament

A majority of scholars^[who?] explain the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke using the two-source hypothesis, according to which, Matthew and Luke derived most of their content from Mark and from a lost collection of Jesus' sayings known as the Q document. In the small amount of additional material unique to Matthew, Jesus is presented with strong parallels to Old Testament figures, most noticeably Moses.^{[citation needed]}

It is widely accepted^[who?] that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. Advocates of the Jesus-myth believe that the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible. Some advocates^[who?] argue that there is no reason to assume that the sayings attributed to Q originated with Jesus. Doherty has argued that when the midrashic elements are removed, little to no content remains that could be used to demonstrate the existence of an historical Jesus.^[43][44]

Though believing that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus-myth theory argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Greco-Roman biographies.^{[citation needed]} Such works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments.

[edit] Parallels with Mediterranean mystery religions

Some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that many aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have remarkable parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenic culture amongst which Christianity was born. However Charlesworth writes^[45] "It would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events...".

The central figure of one of the most widespread, Osiris-Dionysus, was consistently localised and deliberately merged with local deities in each area, since it was the mysteries which were imparted that were regarded as important, not the method by which they were taught. In the view of some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, most prominently Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, Jewish mystics adapted their form of Osiris-Dionysus to match prior Jewish heroes like Moses and Joshua, hence creating Jesus.^[9]

Several parallels are frequently cited by these advocates, and often appear, mixed with other parallels, on internet sites. The most prominently cited parallels are with Horus and Mithras. Horus was one of the life-death-rebirth deities, and was connected and involved with those of Osiris.

Worship of Isis, Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and there is a proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography.^{[citation needed]}

Mithraism was a mystery religion widespread in parts of the Roman Empire in the second and third centuries.^[46][47] Mithraic sanctuaries ("Mithraea") feature images of the tauroctony, the killing by Mithras of a bull. These appear to include astrological elements, possibly associating Mithras with the Sun.^[48] Initiates progressed through seven grades associated with planets, and may have conceived their souls as ascending away from Earth and the material world.^[49] An inscription from the Mithraeum at Santa Prisca has an uncertain text but may refer to the shedding of the bull's blood as having "saved us".^[50]

Mithraic practices have been compared to those of Christians, including baptism, confirmation and communion.^[51] However, Mithraists may not have sanctified Sunday as the day of the Sun.^[52] Images in Mithraea show Mithras being born from a rock, and it has been conjectured that his worshippers celebrated his birth on December 25, since this is known to have been regarded as the "birthday" of Sol Invictus.^[53] The Christian apologist Justin Martyr referred to the use of bread and water in Mithraic ritual, which he regarded as a demonic imitation of the Christian Eucharist.^[54] Grape-imagery in Mithraea has been taken to show that wine was also consumed by Mithraists.^[55] Mithraea included bathing pools or basins,^[56] and Tertullian, discussing non-Christian rituals comparable to Christian baptism, referred to Mithraic initiation "by means of a bath".^[57] Papyrus fragments preserve what may be a kind of Mithraic "catechism", "in which an officiant questions an initiate, who must give the required answers".^[58]

In 1962, scholar of Judaism Samuel Sandmel cautioned against what he described as "Parallelomania": "We might for our purposes define parallelomania as that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction."^[59]

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom, a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians.^[9] More recently in the book Reinventing Jesus, the authors put forth the position that "Only after 100 A.D. did the mysteries begin to look very much like Christianity, precisely because their existence was threatened by this new religion. They had to compete to survive."^[60]

However, some prominent early Christians, e.g. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr actually argued for the existence of some of these parallels; Justin specifically used several to attempt to prove that Christianity was not a new cult, but that it was rooted in ancient prophecy which had been "diabolically imitated".^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Historiography and methodology

Earl Doherty argues that the gospels are inconsistent concerning "such things as the baptism and nativity stories, the finding of the empty tomb and Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances" and contain numerous "contradictions and disagreements in the accounts of Jesus' words and deeds". He concludes that the evangelists freely altered their sources and invented material, and therefore could not have been concerned to preserve historical information.^[40]

A similar tack works from the claim that the dates in canonical and non-canonical sources do not match up.^[61] For example it is stated in the Talmud that Jesus was killed under Alexander Jannaeus,^[62] and Luke and Matthew have different birth dates that are nearly a decade apart. However the value of using the Talmud, which was written between the 3rd and 6th century, as a reliable witness in this matter is highly questionable^[63] and inconsistent if one questions the validity works written within 20 years of Jesus's life.

Opponents of the theory, including skeptical commentators such as the Jesus Seminar, argue that some reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used.^[64]

[edit] Scholarly response

The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians.

• Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today.^[4]
• Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the thesis as "effectively refuted".^[3]
• Grant writes "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." ^[65]
• Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ...", ^[66]

Jesus-myth proponent Earl Doherty agrees that "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."^[20]. He explains this by saying that "interests", both religious and secular, have "mounted a campaign against it."^[20]

[edit] Specific criticisms

The points below highlight some criticisms of various arguments for an ahistorical Jesus.

• Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."^[67]
• R.T. France states that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.^[25]
• In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost" and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major event.^[25]
• R.T France disagrees with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. He argues that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus's life in Paul's letters, such as Romans 1:3 ^[25].

[edit] See also

• Jesus Christ and comparative mythology
• Criticism of Jesus
• Acharya S
• Jordan Maxwell
• The God Who Wasn't There - 2005 documentary

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

• Allegro, John M. (1992). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, 2nd rev. ed., Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-757-4. 
• Atwill, Joseph (2003). The Roman Origins of Christianity. J. Atwill. ISBN 0-9740928-0-0. 
• Atwill, Joseph (2005). Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Berkeley, Calif.: Ulysses. ISBN 1-56975-457-8. 
• Brodie, Thomas L. (2000). The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5942-X. 
• Ellegård, Alvar (1999). Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study in Creative Mythology. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-7956-1. 
• Freke, Timothy; and Peter Gandy (1999). The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?. London: Thorsons. ISBN 0-7225-3676-3. 
• Harpur, Tom (2005). The Pagan Christ:Recovering the Lost Light. Toronto, Canada: Thomas Allen Publishers. ISBN 0-88762-195-3. 
• Historicus, (pseudonym for Jacob Benjamin) (1972). Did Jesus Ever Live --- or Is Christianity Founded Upon a Myth. Los Angeles, CA: United Secularists of America. 
• Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-758-9. 
• Price, Robert M. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-121-9. 
• Price, Robert M. (2005). "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash". Encyclopaedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-14166-9. 
• Seznec, Jean. 1972, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017832
• Thompson, Thomas L. (2005). The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-08577-6. 
• Volney, Constantin-François (1796). The Ruins, or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires and the Law of Nature. New York, N.Y.: Davis. 
• Wells, G. A. (1982). The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-180-0. 
• Wells, G. A. (1999). The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9392-2. 

[edit] Supporting a historical Jesus

• Barnett,P (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History, Apollos, ISBN 978-0851115122
• Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. ISBN 978-0802831620. 
• Bovon, François (2006). The Last Days of Jesus, trans. Kristin Hennessy; Louisville: Westminster, John Knox. ISBN 0664230075. 
• Burridge, Richard A. (2006). Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, 2nd edn., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans. ISBN 0802829805. 
• Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 080284880X. 
• Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Christianity in the Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. ISBN 978-0802839312. 
• Dunn, James D.G. (2005). A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology). Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic. ISBN 0-8010-2710-1. 
• Eddy, PR and Boyd, GA, (2007), The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144
• Evans, Craig A [2006] (2006). Fabricating Jesus. IVP Books. ISBN 978-0830833184. 
• Grant, Michael [1977] (1999). Jesus. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-75380-899-4. 
• Komoszewski, J. Ed; et al (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications. ISBN 082542982X. 
• Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., New York: Doubleday. 
  1. (1991) The Roots of the Problem and the Person. ISBN 0-385-26425-9. 
  2. (1994) Mentor, Message, and Miracles. ISBN 0-385-46992-6. 
  3. (2001) Companions and Competitors. ISBN 0-385-46993-4. 
• Porter, Stanley and Bedard, Stephen(2006), Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea, Clements
• Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7. 
• Theissen, Gerd; and Annette Merz (1998). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3123-4. 
• Wright, NT (1996). The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0800626818. 

[edit] External links

[edit] Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

• The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty
• "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" by Richard Carrier
• Debunking the Historical Jesus by Dan Barker, Freedom from Religion Foundation
• "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke/Gandy
• Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ by R. G. Price, rationalrevolution.net
• The "Historical" Jesus? by Acharya S
• The Jesus Myth: Where Faith and Logic Collide (thejesusmyth.com)
• Jesus Never Existed home page
• The Fable of Christ by Luigi Cascioli

[edit] Supporting a historical Jesus

• "A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth" by Christopher Price
• "Did Jesus Exist" a page devoted to the issues raised by the Jesus Myth
• "On Criticism". Constantin Brunner's critique of the Jesus-as-myth theory from his book, "Our Christ".
• Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
• The Evidence For Jesus by Dr. William Lane Craig
• The Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas