Christ a Fiction, by Robert Price

When I was browsing throug your pages, there were many refernces to character of Christ being made out of those of other persons, such as buddha. Actually I am yet to come across any reference within the buddhist schools to Buddha being born of a virgin. princes MahaMaya was married to king Suddhodana and Siduhat (who later became Buddha) was their son. There is absolutely no refernce of Siduhat's mother bieng a virgin in Theravada or Mahayana traditions! This is a common mistaken assumption made by many who haven't ever referred to any original buddhistic texts, but quote from others without cheking primary sources. Also, Siduhat's mother died within seven days of giving birth to him (according to texts, otherwise Buddha may have to hold his mother superior to him after his "enlightenment"), and Jesus' mother lived even after he was seen as the savior. So the two stories are less parallel than those of JFK & Abe lincoln!

I think that Robert Price sums it up quite well in his article Christ a Fiction (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html)when he says: <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.

These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.</font>
On the other hand, I also think that the attempt to find parallels to Jesus-as-the-Christ in the biographies of others is often quite strained. But this is not my area of expertise, therefore I'm going to ask one or two others to respond. You might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

--Don--

[Richard Carrier]

Sam, where did you see these references to Buddha's virgin birth? If they were in our Historical Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/), please read the disclaimer there. But if they were in our Modern Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/) then sources should have been given, and if not I would like to see to getting corrections or footnotes appended. So I'd like to know where you found these references. Thanks!

[Richard Carrier]

Sam directed me to Christ a Fiction (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html) (1997) by Robert M. Price and Defining a Square Circle (http://www.infidels.org/org/ar/articles/hayes2.html) by Judith Hayes. If anyone knows of others, please send the URL's to me. As for these two, they do not actually assert that Buddha was born of a virgin.

The Price essay does not say Buddha was born of a virgin. It only attributes to him the divine man pattern, which does not contain any reference to virgin birth, only "supernaturally predicted and conceived" (and this only as one of a long list of criteria), but this does not entail virgin birth, only some sort of supernatural conception (and I think even if a hero does not fit all the criteria Price's point still stands: the pattern is similar).

The Hayes essay only issues a subjunctive conditional (a "what if" statement), not an assertion of fact, i.e. "If you believe the Buddha was born walking and talking, of a virgin, and that reincarnation is possible (supernatural) then your Buddhism is a religion." This sentence is true even if no one believes this, since this does not assert what "is" but what "would be" if someone believed it. The point of her argument is the definition of religion, not a Christ-Buddha comparison.

Response to "Christ a Fiction 1997 by Robert M Price"

Dec. 14 2002

The Old Testament predicted Christ's arrival before Abram in Genesis, do you really think people off that time and education could even think that they need a savior? The only thing Abram wanted for was, children; he had no need for a savior 2000 years after his death. The author of Genesis and the people who would read Genesis would not have anything to gain by writing and reading about a Messiah who would come and free them from bondage. They were nomads in the land and lived off the land, without much care and concern except for food, water and shelter.
You may compare Christ to a super hero but I do not agree because it was the people who wanted a hero and Christ came to give light to mankind. Christianity is not created by mankind, so it should not be compared to other religions that are created by man. I think that one of the reasons that some of the Jews wanted to get rid of Christ was because he was not the hero that they expected. Christ was not going to free them from Roman rule, and he was not going to set up a kingdom that they could see on earth.
Christ has something to offer that is free and there is nothing as far as works that we can do to get it. But this free gift of salvation is not something that is adaptable to everyone but it is something we need to adapt to. This gift of grace is permanent, and so is the opposite after our time on earth is up. When we die and leave this body we are ether separated from God forever, or we are with God forever. I realize that it is harder for a person with higher education to grasp and keep the true meaning of Christmas, Easter, and to think in terms other than what man has learned. It is also hard for humans to think of something like God controlling things which they cannot. After all we are the highest life form on this earth, right?
You cannot just explain away the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection as accounts of a love story and/or a live burial. Christ was beaten and nailed up to a cross with nails through his hands and feet, He was not just tied up like normal crucifixions to suffocate from the tiring inability to breath because of the weight of his own body on his arms stretching on his rib cage. Then they pierced his side. This does not sound like a live burial to me, and it does not sound like He would be strong enough to push the large stone away to sneak past the guards on duty and walk out to have Thomas check His wounds. And Christ's body was never found.
If you look for physical evidence that Christ is, you may find it hard but you have to look into someone's heart and check the fruit of their spirit.
You can say Christ is a corporate logo, but the difference is that Christ has no human thing to gain if you choose to believe in him, Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, and Joe Camel all have a profit and shareholders to contend with. And Christianity teaches us that we must think and draw conclusions with a clear discerning mind to help mankind even our enemies, for they need our love the most.
I would like to thank Robert M Price for his comments, even though I totally disagree with the point of view, it has caused me to read and research more of the bible and by the way some of your references in the bible disagree with what you state in your article. I am going to stake my eternity in heaven on the fact that Christ was, is and forever will be my savior and yours too. I think your article would help to strengthen Christian belief of any that reads it; however it would persuade some to not peruse Christ as they should and some to draw away from God. For this only you and God will resolve.

Forever in Christ

Vern Dorr

[-DM-]

Robert Price responds:

---------

Vern,

Thanks for taking the time to think about the article and react to it!

As for the Superhero analogy, I don't see how anyone can possibly deny the aptness of it, given the superhuman powers and feats attributed to Jesus! The possibility that some contemporaries were disappointed at Jesus' not being a political figure is quite a different issue.

On Abraham, you sound like you are agreeing with me. I don't see where your objection lies on that score.

As for explaining away the crucifixion, I must, I'm afraid, refer you to the much more extensive treatment of the question in my book Deconstructing Jesus, where I deal with the supposed facts of the spear-thrust, etc. And tying versus nailing on the cross is not really decisive. Either way, Josephus tells us it was quite common for people to be taken down alive from the cross.

And is there really no financial motive for the promotion of Jesus as an institutional trademark? I think of a Simpsons episode where, having pulled a prank on the church congregation, Bart and Milhouse are punished by being assigned to polish the organ pipes. Bart speculates, "What if there isn't any hell?" Milhouse replies, "Why would anybody make it up?" And then the scene switches to Reverend Lovejoy counting the plate offering.

Having said that, I do not reduce all religion to chicanery as do many of my atheist and skeptical buddies. I view it as a fascinating man-made cultural product, amenable to fanatical distortion (as is atheism! Witness Stalin!), but also embodying great beauty and profundity. I am no enemy of religion, only of what Albert Schweitzer called "the twisted and fragile thinking of Christian apologetics."

What bothers me about your reply is the implied equation of ignorance with piety. It may be hard for an intellectual to accept the simple verities of the cross, grace, etc. This is a patronizing dig at intellectuals, and a very paradoxical one. I suggest you do not start using intellectual arguments and then damn intellectualism in favor of childlike faith. All the more since, at least in my opinion, piety is by no means incompatible with critical thought and intellectual curiosity. What freethinker does not feel a deep sense of "pious" respect and reverence for Ingersoll, Jefferson, etc.? Piety is an attitude of veneration, a respect for greatness which implies humility. Do not paint all who disagree with your views as stuffed-shirt intellectuals. You will get nowhere in debate and will only hinder your own intellectual apprehension of faith. It is obvious you are no simple childlike believer either. I commend your zeal for study and your love of the Bible.

Keep up the good work!

Robert M. Price

Mr. Price,
I find it difficult to believe that someone who claims to have been a believer would make such an outrages claim that Christ is fictitious. Here are four questions I would like you to answer.

1. Why would someone, let alone several people [the desciples] ever die a horrible death [Marterdom] for something or someone they KNOW to be a lie? People will die for what they BELIEVE to be true, but never for what they, especially as eye witnesses, know to be false.

2. If Christ was an example of a hero archytype, where is the glorious heroes ending. If you are thinking about the ressurection for an answer, remember that the disciples themselves doubted it until they layed hands on him themselves. This leads me to another point.

3. Scince Christianity [Christ] was a a threat to the Jewish faith, wouldn't Christianity have been stopped cold if the Pharrasies or Sanhedrin produced his body thereby discrediting the Christian claims of resurection (a varification of Christ's diety)?

4. Finally, James, brother of Jesus becomes a champion for the early Christian church. Now think about this. Your brother comes to you with a bunch of his buddies and says, " Robert, I, want you to know that I, your older brother is God and that I intend to save all mankind from sin." It is resonable to think that James might react with a "Yeah, right!" just as you might react to your brother saying this. However, as the gospel says, James came to belief after the crucifiction. Why would he do that? Maybe he WITNESSED something compelling enough to accept his brother as his lord and savior. Perhaps, his ressurection.

Thank you for your time and may the Lord bring light into your life so that you may see the truth and know Christ exists.

Sincerely,
Robert Chaplin

[-DM-]

Robert:

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding Christ a Fiction (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html) by Robert M. Price (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/index.shtml).

--

Normally, I would notify the author to whom feedback pertains so that he/she might respond. In this case, however, I am not going to do so. Why? There are three significant reasons:

1) You did not specifically address any of the four senses by which Price says that Christ may be said to be a fiction, to whit:

Robert Price:
Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions.

2) Your questions involve a reasoning error known as "the appeal to ignorance"; that is, whether anyone could or could not provide satisfactory answers to your questions says nothing necessarily about the validity of Christianity, the historicity of the events portrayed in the Bible, or the conclusions which Price draws in this work.

In fact, a nonbeliever can ask the same kinds of questions:
* Why, if the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true, are there so many mutually exclusive discrepancies in the retelling of the details of the story? Couldn't a perfect and omniscient "God" have seen to it that the Gospelists and Paul got it right? [See: Easter Quiz (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=282) to get an idea of what I mean.]
*Would you base your life on, say, the Qur'an if it was as full of discrepancies in detail about its most important story as is the Bible with regard to the Resurrection?
* Why, if he really was resurrected, was Jesus so irresponsible as to appear only to relatively few persons, mostly friends and followers, rather than to people whose testimony would really matter (the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin, Pontius Pilate himself, contemporary historians, all of Jerusalem, etc.)?
* Why didn't the Second Coming occur in the time frame that Jesus seems to have laid out and in which the disciples believed?
*Why does your "God" choose to remain the hide-and-go-seek champion of the universe?

See what I mean about questions like that?

3) Those same questions that you asked have been asked many times before and answered many times by our discussion board participants and others.

--

A few comments regarding the martyr issue:

Q. Why would the Apostles die for a lie?
A. We can't even name the so-called Apostles without encountering an inconsistency, nor can we with certainty determine how those who are identified as disciples actually died. Not only that, the stories surrounding some of the alleged martyrs are beyond belief.

Eusebius, (340?-420?) Bishop, Christian ecclesiastical historian:
On some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs.

Q. Why were so many people prepared to die for Jesus if he wasn't really the son of god or if the resurrection never happened?

A. A similar question could be asked of Masada, Heaven's Gate, Waco, Jim Jones, Islamic and Tamil suicide bombers, Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and countless other examples of people prepared to die for a false or foolish cause throughout the ages.

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), Humanitarian, philosopher, theologian:
Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never the correctness, of a belief.

In his debate with Horner (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html), former evangelist Dan Barker (an ordained minister and former evangelist) says:

Dan Barker:
We do know that a lot of religions have their martyrs. Martyrdom was a big concept in Judaism. The people at Masada allowed themselves to be martyred for their faith. The Muslim extremist who drove a truck full of explosives into the American embassy in Beirut became a martyr for his faith. Does that prove that it was right? The Hari Kari bombers were dying for their faith. The Hindu [Buddhist] monk who set himself on fire in protest of the Viet Nam war. Martyrdom is a thing that happens in a lot of religions where people are committed. Look at these Hasad people--they're calling it a "wonderful" thing to kill themselves as martyrs for the faith. So, if it proves Christianity is true, it proves all the other religions are true as well.

In his Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html), Richard Carrier says:

Richard Carrier:
From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety.

--

If you really want answers to your questions, I suggest that you become a registered user (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/register.php?s=&action=signup) of our discussion board and ask them in an appropriate discussion forum and/or do some additional reading in the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml):

How Did the Apostles Die? (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html) by Dave Matson

Why Did the Apostles Die? (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4why97.html) by Dave Matson

The Martyrs (http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs.htm) (Off Site) by Steven Carr

Legends of Saints and Martyrs (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_15.html) by Joseph McCabe

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html) by Richard Carrier

Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html) by Jeffery Lowder

The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection, The Debate between Christians and Skeptics (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/) by Jeffery Lowder

The Resurrection Maze (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/2/2maze92.html) by Farrell Till (an ordained minister and a former missionary)

The Pagan Origins of Resurrection (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/6/016pagan.html) by Farrell Till (an ordained minister and a former missionary)

-Don-

[thattomblairkid]

I wonder why we as a culture constantly ask this question about Christ (Jesus of Nazareth)?

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback to Christ a Fiction (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html) by Robert M. Price (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html)

I am not at all sure what question it is that you have in mind. Perhaps you have in mind the question, "Why do we as a culture constantly ask: 'Is Christ a fiction?'" Price did not ask that question, however; instead, he stated this: "I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction" [emphasis added]. And Price stated his reasons in the article itself.

-DM-

P.S. There is quite a difference between talking about "Christ" (the Messiah) and talking about "Jesus of Nazareth" (the person) in that regardless of whether or not we can uncover the historical Jesus, regardless of whether there was or was not such a person, there is nevertheless good reason to believe that if such a person existed (and I assume that such a person did exist)--he certainly was NOT "The Christ."

[Enda80]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

Christ a Fiction

Incidentally, Mr. Price, the story you had in mind was either Adventure Comics#187 or #279.

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/98/400/98_4_0279.jpg

[Matthew_Green]

I don't want to speak for Dr. Price, but I feel confident that I can answer some of these questions. Let's see here:

1. Why would someone, let alone several people [the desciples] ever die a horrible death [Marterdom] for something or someone they KNOW to be a lie? People will die for what they BELIEVE to be true, but never for what they, especially as eye witnesses, know to be false.

This is a false dichotomy. It assumes that the disciples were in an unmistakable position to know either way that the resurrection really did happen or not. It assumes without proving that they couldn't have been mistaken. The error in this argument is an epistemic one and not necessarily an historical error. The epistemic error is that this argument creates a false dichotomy by ruling out the possibility of delusion without trying to rebut it on historical grounds. That the disciples were in a position to know for sure whether the resurrection happened or not is a very dubious possibility at best. That they could've been self-deceived through a series of visions seems to me much more probable.

2. If Christ was an example of a hero archytype, where is the glorious heroes ending. If you are thinking about the ressurection for an answer, remember that the disciples themselves doubted it until they layed hands on him themselves. This leads me to another point.

Price very much addresses this point in his book Beyond Born Again. It may not be even an historical fact that they disciples doubted that Jesus had risen but this may be a fictive literary device designed to convey to readers the power of faith in overcoming the biggest doubts or it may be an apologetic designed to rebut accusations from critics that the disciples imagined or hallucinated the whole thing. Either of these alternatives is possible and the very possibility of these alone is sufficient to rob the skepticism of the disciples as a prima facie historical fact. It has to be kept in mind that the question of genre is very important and the gospels may be of the type of genre that has fictive/literary devices designed to accomplish precisley this.

3. Scince Christianity [Christ] was a a threat to the Jewish faith, wouldn't Christianity have been stopped cold if the Pharrasies or Sanhedrin produced his body thereby discrediting the Christian claims of resurection (a varification of Christ's diety)?

How was it a threat? Your argument here presupposes that the Jews and their leadership took the claims seriously enough to bother trying to wipe the Christian faith out. Even if the Jews were interested in rebutting the Christians, bear in mind that the Jews might not have known how Jesus was ultimately buried and so they might have reasoned that if they did find the body of Jesus that there was little chance they could prove that the body really was that of Jesus! The body had decayed by several weeks and might have been unrecognizable. They might've anticipated this and thought it wasn't worth the effort to produce it. Another problem is that Paul tells his congregation in Galatians 1:8 that even if angel was to come along and proclaim a different gospel that this angel was to be condemned. Here, Paul is essentially nullfying his followers against possible disproof of the faith. If an angel comes along and preaches a different gospel (implying that the gospel they believed was wrong by default of an alternative gospel) not to believe that angel. If they were not to believe any angel bringing a differing gospel, how open-minded would they be to more naturalistic, mundane discomfirmations of the gospel such as Jews producing a body? Even if it looked like something that couldn't be pulled off by mere humans alone then the Christians would probably accuse the Jews of being in concert with the devil and colluding with him to deceive the disciples. They might conclude that the more convincing the body looks like that of Jesus, the greater the chance that a counterfeit miracle has occured.

4. Finally, James, brother of Jesus becomes a champion for the early Christian church. Now think about this. Your brother comes to you with a bunch of his buddies and says, " Robert, I, want you to know that I, your older brother is God and that I intend to save all mankind from sin." It is resonable to think that James might react with a "Yeah, right!" just as you might react to your brother saying this. However, as the gospel says, James came to belief after the crucifiction. Why would he do that? Maybe he WITNESSED something compelling enough to accept his brother as his lord and savior. Perhaps, his ressurection.

We're not told how he came to believe. We're not told that he felt the hands of Jesus as Thomas allegedly did or that he spoke and talked with the risen Jesus. 1st Corinthians 15 contains a creed of appearances and James is among them. If we accept the creed as unembellished and not having been interpolated or stitched together from other sources, all it says is that Jesus appeared to him using the same verb of Paul- meaning a vision of some sort. Nothing else is said of it. It didn't say that this is what caused James to convert, whether he had been a disciple before then or how long after this he may have converted. We don't possess a letter from him documenting his conversion nor do we possess anything in the way of independent eyewitness verification or attestation. In short- we have too little in the way of details to draw any definite conclusions.