Lack of detailed biographical information in Pauline epistles

Dating and attribution

Mainstream view

The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to circa 48–62 AD and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.^[121]^{[q 20]} Most scholars view the Pauline letters as essential elements in the study of the historical Jesus,^[121]^[122]^[123]^[124] and the development of early Christianity.^[30]

Mythicist view

Mythicists agree on the importance of the Pauline epistles, some agreeing with this early dating, and taking the Pauline epistles as their point of departure from mainstream scholarship.^[90] They argue that those letters point solely into the direction of a celestial or mythical being, or contain no definitive information on a historical Jesus. Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles, raising the possibility that they represent a later, more developed strand of early Christian thought.

Theologian Willem Christiaan van Manen of the Dutch school of radical criticism noted various anachronisms in the Pauline epistles. Van Manen claimed that they could not have been written in their final form earlier than the 2nd century. He also noted that the Marcionite school was the first to publish the epistles, and that Marcion (c. 85 – c. 160) used them as justification for his gnostic and docetic views that Jesus' incarnation was not in a physical body. Van Manen also studied Marcion's version of Galatians in contrast to the canonical version and argued that the canonical version was a later revision that de-emphasized the Gnostic aspects.^[125]

Price also argues for a later dating of the epistles, and sees them as a compilation of fragments (possibly with a Gnostic core),^[126] contending that Marcion was responsible for much of the Pauline corpus or even wrote the letters himself. Price criticizes other Christ myth theorists for holding the mid-first-century dating of the epistles for their own apologetical reasons.^[127]^{[note 6]}

Lack of biographical information

Mainstream view

According to Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus" compared to the Gospels. However, Paul was "a recent contemporary" of Jesus.^[129]^[130] and he alludes to some aspects of Jesus' life in the letters.^[131] Paul's letters state that he knew eyewitnesses of Jesus including his close disciples and Jesus' brother James going as far back as 36 CE.^[132]^[133] Paul viewed Jesus as being a descendant of David, having an upbringing in the Jewish Law, gathering disciples, involved in the Last Supper, being betrayed, being executed, and resurrecting.^[134]^[131] The early references by Paul about the life of Jesus support that Jesus existed and that Paul had a general interest in his life.^[135] According to Christopher Tuckett, "[e]ven if we had no other sources, we could still infer some things about Jesus from Paul's letters" such that he was a Jew with siblings, and that he was a preacher who was executed.^[136]^{[note 2]}

Mythicist view

Robert Price says that Paul does not refer to Jesus' earthly life, also not when that life might have provided convenient examples and justifications for Paul's teachings. Instead, revelation seems to have been a prominent source for Paul's knowledge about Jesus.^[77]

The Gospels are not historical records

Mainstream view

Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography,^[137]^[138]^[139]^[140]^[141] a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.^[142]^{[note 7]} Biblical scholarship regards the gospels to be the literary manifestation of oral traditions that originated during the life of a historical Jesus, who according to Dunn had a profound impact on his followers.^[146]

There are archeological finds that corroborate aspects of the time of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, such as context from Nazareth, the High Priest Caiaphas' ossuary, numerous synagogue buildings, and Jehohanan, a crucified victim who had a Jewish burial after execution.^[147]^[148] Written sources and excavations on Nazareth correlate with Jesus' existence, Joseph and Jesus' occupation as craftworkers, presence of literacy, existence of synagogues, Gospel accounts relating to Nazareth, and other Roman period sources on Nazareth.^[149]

Oral traditions in the gospels precede the surviving gospels by decades, going back to the time of Jesus and the time of Paul's persecution of the early Christian Jews, prior to his conversion.^[150]^{[note 8]} Most available sources are collections of early oral traditions about Jesus and the historical value of traditions are not necessarily correlated with the later dates of composition of writings since even later sources can contain early tradition material.^[153] Theissen and Merz state that these traditions can be dated back well before the composition of the synoptic gospels, that such traditions show local familiarity of the region, and that such traditions were explicitly called "memory", indicating biographical elements that included historical references such as notable people from his era.^[154] According to Maurice Casey, some of the sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources which indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony.^[155]

Mythicist view

Mythicists argue that in the gospels "a fictitious historical narrative" was imposed on the "mythical cosmic savior figure" created by Paul.^[100] According to Robert Price, the gospels "smack of fictional composition",^{[web 11]} arguing that they are a type of legendary fiction^[98] and that the story of Jesus portrayed in the gospels fits the mythic hero archetype.^[98]^[99] The mythic hero archetype, present in many cultures, often has a miraculous conception or virgin births heralded by wise men and marked by a star, is tempted by or fights evil forces, dies on a hill, appears after death and then ascends to heaven.^[156] According to Earl Doherty, the gospels are "essentially allegory and fiction".^[157]

According to Wells in his later writings, a historical Jesus existed, whose teachings were preserved in the Q source.^[158] Wells said the gospels weave together two Jesus narratives, namely the Galilean preacher of the Q document, and Paul's mythical Jesus.^[158] Doherty disagrees with Wells regarding the teacher of the Q-document, arguing that he was an allegorical character who personified Wisdom and came to be regarded as the founder of the Q-community.^[101]^[159] According to Doherty, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly Gentile community.^[101]

Mainstream criticism

Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts.^[160] Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus.^[161]^[162] Secular academics Kendrick and McFarland have also pointed out that the teachings of Jesus marked "a radical departure from all the conventions by which heroes had been defined".^[163]

No independent eyewitness accounts

Lack of surviving historic records

Mythicist view

Myth proponents claim there is significance in the lack of surviving historic records about Jesus of Nazareth from any non-Jewish author until the second century,^[164]^[165]^{[q 21]} adding that Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence.^[166] They note that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 AD.^[167]

Mainstream criticism

Bart Ehrman estimates that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus.^[58] According to archeologist Ken Dark, for Jesus there are at least 12 independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters.^[57] Since historical sources on other named individuals from first century Galilee were written by either supporters or enemies, these sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.^[57] With at least 14 sources by supporters and non-supporters, within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for any other notable person from 1st century Galilee.^[59]

Paul's letters are the earliest surviving sources on Jesus.^[132]^[168] Paul's reference to James as Jesus' brother in particular is distinctive.^[169] Additionally, there are other independent sources (Mark, John, Josephus) affirming that Jesus had brothers.^[170]

Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt.^[171] Nonetheless, even non-Christian sources do exist and they do corroborate key details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources.^[172]

According to Classical historian Michael Grant, that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied anymore than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.^[173]

Mainstream biblical scholars point out that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost^[174] and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period.^[175]^[176] Ehrman points out that there is no known archaeological or textual evidence for the existence of most people in the ancient world, even famous people like Pontius Pilate, whom the myth theorists agree to have existed.^[175] Robert Hutchinson notes that this is also true of Josephus, despite the fact that he was "a personal favorite of the Roman Emperor Vespasian".^[177] Hutchinson quotes Ehrman, who notes that Josephus is never mentioned in 1st century Greek or Roman sources, despite being "a personal friend of the emperor".^[177]

Josephus and Tacitus

There are three non-Christian sources that are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, namely two mentions in Josephus, and one mention in the Roman source Tacitus.^[178]^[179]^[180]^[181]^[182]

Mainstream view

From these two independent sources alone (Josephus and Tacitus), we can adduce certain facts about Jesus: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, was executed during Pilate's governorship.^[172]

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage in Book 18, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.^[183]^[184] According to Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James") and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.^[185]^[186]^[187]^[188]

Roman historian Tacitus referred to "Christus" and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44^[189]^{[note 9]} The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes most experts believe that the passage is extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.^[181]^{[need quotation to verify]} The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus' crucifixion,^[191] although some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.^[192]^[193]

Mythicist view

Myth proponents note that the Testimonium Flavianum is likely a forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others.^[194]^{[note 10]} Richard Carrier further argues that the original text of Antiquities 20 referred to a brother of the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, named James, and not to the Jesus of Christianity.^[199] Carrier further argues that the words "the one called Christ" likely resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader.^[199]

Christ myth theory supporters such as Carrier note that sources such as Tacitus and others, which were written decades after the supposed events, include no independent traditions that relate to Jesus, and hence can provide no confirmation of historical facts about him.^[96]^[107]

Other sources

Mainstream view

In Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000), Van Voorst considers references to Jesus in classical writings, Jewish writings, hypothetical sources of the canonical Gospels, and extant Christian writings outside the New Testament. He concludes that non-Christian sources provide "a small but certain corroboration of certain New Testament historical traditions on the family background, time of life, ministry, and death of Jesus", as well as "evidence of the content of Christian preaching that is independent of the New Testament", while extra-biblical Christian sources give access to "some important information about the earliest traditions on Jesus". However, New Testament sources remain central for "both the main lines and the details about Jesus' life and teaching".^[200]

Jesus was a mythical being

Syncretism and diversity

Mainstream view

Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts. Out of this Jewish sect developed Early Christianity, which was very diverse, with proto-orthodoxy and "heretical" views like Gnosticism alongside each other.^[201]^[36] According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century AD, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy.^[202] According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism.^[203]

Mythicist view

In Christ and the Caesars (1877), philosopher Bruno Bauer suggested that Christianity was a synthesis of the Stoicism of Seneca the Younger, Greek Neoplatonism, and the Jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman Jews such as Josephus. This new religion was in need of a founder and created its Christ.^[204]^[105] In a review of Bauer's work, Robert Price notes that Bauer's basic stance regarding the Stoic tone and the fictional nature of the gospels are still repeated in contemporary scholarship.^{[web 11]}

Doherty notes that, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek culture and language spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, influencing the already existing cultures there.^[108] The Roman conquest of this area added to the cultural diversity, but also to a sense of alienation and pessimism.^[108] A rich diversity of religious and philosophical ideas was available and Judaism was held in high regard by non-Jews for its monotheistic ideas and its high moral standards.^[108] Yet monotheism was also offered by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, with its high God and the intermediary Logos.^[108] According to Doherty, "Out of this rich soil of ideas arose Christianity, a product of both Jewish and Greek philosophy",^[108] echoing Bruno Bauer, who argued that Christianity was a synthesis of Stoicism, Greek Neoplatonism, and Jewish thought.^[105]

Robert Price notes that Christianity started among Hellenized Jews, who mixed allegorical interpretations of Jewish traditions with Jewish Gnostic, Zoroastrian, and mystery cult elements.^[205]^[119]^{[q 22]} Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament reinforce Old Testament prophecies^[206] and repeat stories about figures such as Elijah, Elisha,^[207] Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts.^[208] Price notes that almost all the gospel stories have parallels in the Old Testament and other traditions, concluding that the gospels are not independent sources for a historical Jesus, but "legend and myth, fiction and redaction".^[209]

According to Doherty, the rapid growth of early Christian communities and the great variety of ideas cannot be explained by a single missionary effort, but points to parallel developments that arose at various places and competed for support. Paul's arguments against rival apostles also point to this diversity.^[108] Doherty further notes that Yeshua (Jesus) is a generic name, meaning "Yahweh saves" and refers to the concept of divine salvation, which could apply to any kind of saving entity or Wisdom.^[108]

Paul's Jesus is a deity

Mainstream view

According to mainstream scholarship, Jesus was an eschatological preacher or teacher, who was believed by his followers to be exalted after his death.^[210]^[22] The Pauline letters incorporate creeds, or confessions of faith, that predate Paul, and give essential information on the faith of the early Jerusalem community around James, 'the brother of Jesus'.^[211]^[212]^[213]^[30] These pre-Pauline creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death and developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem.^[214] The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds^[215] expressing belief in the risen Jesus, namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41:^[216]^[217]

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,^{[note 11]} and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,^{[note 12]} and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.^[222]

James Dunn states that in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul "recites the foundational belief", namely "that Christ died". According to Dunn, "Paul was told about a Jesus who had died two years earlier or so."^[223] 1 Corinthians 15:11 also refers to others before Paul who preached the creed.^[213]

According to New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado, Jesus' death was interpreted as a redemptive death "for our sins" in accordance with God's plan as contained in the Jewish scriptures.^[224]^{[note 11]} The significance lay in "the theme of divine necessity and fulfillment of the scriptures," rather than the later Pauline emphasis on "Jesus' death as a sacrifice or an expiation for our sins."^[225] For the early Jewish Christians, "the idea that Messiah's death was a necessary redemptive event functioned more as an apologetic explanation for Jesus' crucifixion",^[225] "proving that Jesus' death was no surprise to God."^[226]^{[note 13]} According to Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's covenant.^[228]^[229]^[230]^[231]^{[web 13]}^{[note 14]}

Secular scholars often explain the appearances of Jesus as visionary experiences, in which the presence of Jesus was felt.^[232]^[233]^[234]^[235]^[236]^[237] According to Ehrman, the visions of Jesus and the subsequent belief in Jesus' resurrection radically changed the perceptions of his early followers, concluding from his absence that he must have been exalted to heaven, by God himself, exalting him to an unprecedented status and authority.^[238] According to Hurtado, the resurrection experiences were religious experiences that "seem to have included visions of (and/or ascents to) God's heaven, in which the glorified Christ was seen in an exalted position",^[239] and that may have occurred mostly during corporate worship.^[235] Johan Leman contends that the communal meals provided a context in which participants entered a state of mind in which the presence of Jesus was felt.^[236] Conservative Christian scholars object against this theory, but instead argue in favor of a real, bodily resurrection.^[240]^[241]^[242]^[243]^[244] According to Wright, Paul "believed he had seen the risen Jesus in person, and [...] his understanding of who this Jesus was included the firm belief that he possessed a transformed but still physical body."^[245]

The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus,^[246] such as the Christ hymn of Philippians 2:6–11,^{[note 15]} which portrays Jesus as an incarnated and subsequently exalted heavenly being.^[113]^{[note 16]} Scholars view these as indications that the incarnation and exaltation of Jesus was part of Christian tradition a few years after his death and over a decade before the writing of the Pauline epistles.^[22]^[248]^{[note 17]}

Recent scholarship places the exaltation and devotion of Jesus firmly in a Jewish context. Andrew Chester argues that "for Paul, Jesus is clearly a figure of the heavenly world, and thus fits a messianic category already developed within Judaism, where the Messiah is a human or angelic figure belonging ... in the heavenly world, a figure who at the same time has had specific, limited role on earth".^[252] According to Ehrman, Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel, who was incarnated on earth.^[22]^{[note 18]}^{[note 19]} According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.^[256]^{[web 15]}^{[note 20]}

Mythicist views

Christ myth theorists generally reject the idea that Paul's epistles refer to a historical individual.^{[note 21]} According to Doherty, the Jesus of Paul was a divine Son of God, existing in a spiritual realm^[90] where he was crucified and resurrected.^[258] This mythological Jesus was based on exegesis of the Old Testament and mystical visions of a risen Jesus.^[258] According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, based on a pesher of Septuagint verses and Zechariah 3 and 6, Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52–53.^[259] Carrier notes that there is little if any concrete information about Jesus' earthly life in the Pauline epistles.^[260]

According to Carrier, originally Jesus was a celestial or "angelic extraterrestrial"^[261] who came from a "cosmic sperm bank"^[262] and was tortured and crucified by Satan and his demons, buried in a tomb above the clouds, and resurrected - everything occurring in outer space.^[263] Jesus came from a tradition of "dying-and-rising" savior gods like Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. Along with Mithras, these gods were all the children of a higher god, underwent a passion, conquered death, and existed on Earth within human history.^[264] According to Carrier "[t]his 'Jesus' would most likely have been the same archangel identified by Philo of Alexandria as already extant in Jewish theology",^[265] that Philo knew by all of the attributes by which Paul knew Jesus.^{[note 22]} According to Carrier, Philo says this being was identified as the figure named Jesus in the Book of Zechariah, implying that "already before Christianity there were Jews aware of a celestial being named Jesus who had all of the attributes the earliest Christians were associating with their celestial being named Jesus".^{[web 10]}

Raphael Lataster, following Carrier, also argues that "Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels."^[266]

Mainstream criticism

Ehrman notes that Doherty, like many other mythicists, "quotes professional scholars at length when their views prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis."^[267] Ehrman has also criticized Doherty for misquoting scholarly sources as if in support of his celestial being-hypothesis, whereas those sources explicitly "[refer] to Christ becoming a human being in flesh on earth—precisely the view he rejects."^{[web 2]}

James McGrath criticizes Carrier, stating that Carrier is ignoring the details, adding that "Philo is offering an allusive reference to, and allegorical treatment of, a text in Zechariah which mentioned a historical high priest named Joshua."^{[web 17]}

According to Hurtado, for Paul and his contemporaries Jesus was a human being, who was exalted as Messiah and Lord after his crucifixion.^{[web 1]} According to Hurtado, "There is no evidence whatsoever of a 'Jewish archangel Jesus' in any of the second-temple Jewish evidence. ... Instead, all second-temple instances of the name are for historical figures."^{[web 1]} Hurtado rejects Carrier's claim that "Philo of Alexandria mentions an archangel named 'Jesus'", instead stating that Philo mentions a priestly figure called Joshua, and a royal personage whose name can be interpreted as "rising", among other connotations. According to Hurtado, there is no "Jesus Rising" in either Zechariah nor Philo.^{[web 18]}^{[web 19]}^{[note 23]}

Ehrman notes that "there were no Jews prior to Christianity who thought that Isaiah 53 (or any of the other "suffering" passages) referred to the future messiah."^[268] Only after his death were these texts used to interpret his suffering in a meaningful way,^[268] though "Isaiah is not speaking about the future messiah, and he was never interpreted by any Jews prior to the first century as referring to the messiah."^[269]^{[note 24]}

Simon Gathercole at Cambridge also evaluated the mythicist arguments for the claim that Paul believed in a heavenly, celestial Jesus who was never on Earth. Gathercole concludes that Carrier's arguments—and more broadly, the mythicist positions on different aspects of Paul's letters—are contradicted by the historical data and that Paul says a number of things regarding Jesus' life on Earth, his personality, family, etc.^[270]

Parallels with savior gods

Mainstream view

Jesus should be understood in the Palestinian and Jewish context of the first century AD.^[53]^[54]^[55] Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. According to Hurtado, Roman-era Judaism refused "to worship any deities other than the God of Israel," including "any of the adjutants of the biblical God, such as angels, messiahs, etc."^{[web 20]} The Jesus-devotion which emerged in early Christianity should therefore be regarded as a specific, Christian innovation in the Jewish context.^{[web 20]}

Mythicist view

According to Wells, in his early years, Doherty, and Carrier, the mythical Jesus was derived from Wisdom traditions, the personification of an eternal aspect of God, who came to visit human beings.^[271]^[272]^{[web 21]} Doherty notes that the concept of a spiritual Christ was the result of common philosophical and religious ideas of the first and second century AD, in which the idea of an intermediary force between God and the world were common.^[90]

According to Doherty, the Christ of Paul shares similarities with the Greco-Roman mystery cults.^[90] Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy argue that Jesus was a deity, akin to the mystery cults,^[273] while Dorothy Murdock argues that the Christ myth draws heavily on the Egyptian story of Osiris and Horus.^[274] According to Carrier, early Christianity was one of several mystery cults that developed out of Hellenistic influences on local cults and religions.^[264]

Alvar Ellegård has argued that Paul's Jesus may have lived far earlier, in a dimly remembered remote past.^[81]^[83]^[120] Wells argues that Paul's Jesus did not have a definite historical moment in mind for when he was supposedly crucified.^{[q 23]}^[275]

According to Price, the Toledot Yeshu places Jesus "about 100 BCE", while Epiphanius of Salamis and the Talmud make references to "Jewish and Jewish-Christian belief" that Jesus lived about a century earlier than usually assumed. According to Price, this implies that "perhaps the Jesus figure was at first an ahistorical myth and various attempts were made to place him in a plausible historical context, just as Herodotus and others tried to figure out when Hercules 'must have' lived".^[276]^{[note 26]}

Mainstream criticism

Mainstream scholarship disagrees with these interpretations, and regards them as outdated applications of ideas and methodologies from the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world" but this does not mean that Jesus was "invented"; according to Davies, "the existence of a guru of some kind is more plausible and economical than any other explanation".^{[web 7]} Ehrman states that mythicists make too much of the perceived parallels with pagan religions and mythologies. According to Ehrman, critical-historical research has clearly shown the Jewish roots and influences of Christianity.^[28]

Many mainstream biblical scholars respond that most of the perceived parallels with mystery religions are either coincidences or without historical basis and/or that these parallels do not prove that a Jesus figure did not live.^[279]^{[note 27]} Boyd and Eddy doubt that Paul viewed Jesus similar to the savior deities found in ancient mystery religions.^[284] Ehrman notes that Doherty proposes that the mystery cults had a neo-Platonic cosmology, but that Doherty gives no evidence for this assertion.^[285] Furthermore, "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," nor did they play a role in the worldview of any of the Jewish groups of the first century.^[286]

Boyd and Eddy criticize the idea that "Paul viewed Jesus as a cosmic savior who lived in the past", referring to various passages in the Pauline epistles that seem to contradict this idea. In Galatians 1:19, Paul says he met with James, the "Lord's brother"; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 refers to people to whom Jesus' had appeared, and who were Paul's contemporaries; and in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 Paul refers to the Jews "who both killed the Lord Jesus" and "drove out us" as the same people, indicating that the death of Jesus was within the same timeframe as the persecution of Paul.^[287]