The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I was wanting to print out that list and I was going to do it from those posts. Now I'll have to chase all around the web looking for it.

You don't always have to apply the "rules" so rigidly In this case, it was useful have " lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere", that come from different places, all in the one place so they can be read together!

Kapyong: could you please supply a link to the snipped content of your two posts.
Thanks

Here you go :

Alleged evidence for Jesus :
http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/alleged-evidence-for-jesus.html

List of writers who could have mentioned Jesus :
http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/early-writers-who-should-or-could-have.html


Kapyong

 

[smartcooky]

Gday,



Here you go :

Alleged evidence for Jesus :
http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/alleged-evidence-for-jesus.html

List of writers who could have mentioned Jesus :
http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/early-writers-who-should-or-could-have.html


Kapyong

Excellent, thank you

I am part of an unofficial but regular "Dinner and Discussion" group. We are all friends (and have been for years) divided roughly between atheists, agnostics and Christians, with a Buddhist (who often has to act as the voice of reason) thrown in for good measure.

Subject material often includes religion, politics, war, science and technology, but the historicity of Jesus crops up regularly. Being able to produce these lists from my wallet could prove useful on Sunday when we next meet!

Cheers

 

[Kapyong]

Gday again,

Excellent, thank you

I am part of an unofficial but regular "Dinner and Discussion" group. We are all friends (and have been for years) divided roughly between atheists, agnostics and Christians, with a Buddhist (who often has to act as the voice of reason) thrown in for good measure.

Subject material often includes religion, politics, war, science and technology, but the historicity of Jesus crops up regularly. Being able to produce these lists from my wallet could prove useful on Sunday when we next meet!

Cheers

You're welcome -

You might also like this list of who claimed (or didn't) to have met a historical Jesus :

http://five-essences.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/who-claimed-to-have-met-historical-jesus.html


Kapyong

 

[maximara]

Alas, I've seen there are problems with that Hadrian correspondence.

http://benstanhope.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/ray-hagins-is-wrong-serapis-letter.html

(So what’s the big deal? In short, this letter is a widely known forgery. It’s a fake.

Despite the obvious fact that the letter (if it were authentic) would be a century too old to demonstrate any meaningful Christian etiology, it is part of a late 4th century forgery entitled Historia Augusta. The Historia Augusta contains so many anachronisms that it is easily dated to AD 395. The “Serapis letter” itself is full of anachronisms demonstrating this point. Hadrian was only in Egypt in 130, and the letter mentions his adopted son Lucius Aelius, who Hadrian did not adopt until six years after. Hadrian also salutes Servianus as consul, but Servianus did receive position as consul until 134. The letter also mentions the “Patriarch of Jewry,” a position that did exist until he created it after the Jewish Revolt in 132.)

Considering the letter is dated to 134 CE this comment make no sense. What is so unusual about refer to a position two years after it was created or addressing a person by their current title?

Furthermore I checked the wikipedia article Augustan History and it is a train wreck of "citation needed" on all the points presented. I think the blog writer simply pulled from wikipedia without checking anything and since there are no work cited for any of the claims being made I cry foul.

I might add the touregypt site that has the letter also has the following references:

Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003) Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt Thames & Hudson, LTD ISBN 0-500-05120-8

Thames & Hudson: "The world's great publisher of illustrated books on art, architecture, design, fashion, archaeology and history"

Shaw, Ian; Nicholson, Paul (1995) Dictionary of Ancient Egypt Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers ISBN 0-8109-3225-3

Hart, George (1986) Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses Routledge ISBN 0-415-05909-7

Routledge: Publisher of Academic Books, Journals, eBooks, Textbooks, Media, Software, Reference and Online Learning Resources.

Morenz, Siegfried (1973) Egyptian Religion Cornell University Press ISBN 0-8014-8029-9

Cornell University Press: need we say more?

Budge, E. A. Wallis (1969) Gods of the Egyptians (Studies in Egyptian Mythology) Dover Publications, Inc. ISBN 486-22056-7

Implication is that these books support the contention that the letter is genuine. Personally I am more inclined to believe a site that gives us references such publishers as Thames & Hudson, Routledge, and Cornell University Press then a blogger who appears to have gotten his information from a wikipedia article that is in bad need of references for nearly every claim it makes.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the analysis, maximara.
Off to learn more!

 

[maximara]

Thanks for the analysis, maximara.
Off to learn more!

Furthermore what citations our blogger does give are not quite what they appear to be:

"Günter Stemberger (PhD Jewish studies, Innsbruck and Göttingen), commenting on the Serapis letter confirms, “We should hardly assume the existence of an actual event on which these remarks were based.”"

But Stemberger also states "More likely they simply intend to characterize Egyptian fickleness by asserting that even the Jewish patriarch would be forced to make concessions towards Christianity and paganism although the Jews cling so stubbornly to their religion. Thus the text serves primarily as evidence for the fame of the patriarch far beyond the boarder of Palestine, and for his uncompromising attitude regarding religious questions."

If as the blogger contends the letter is a 4th century forgery it certainly would NOT "serves primarily as evidence for " anything! Ergo Stemberger actually considers the letter genuine at some level. QED

As for the "Aethioica of Heliodorus and the Historia Augusta,” in Historia Augusta: Colloquium Genevense II., ed. Giorgio L. Bonamente (Italy: Edpuglia, 1994), 43. reference, Glanwill W. Bowersock only says "The presence of fiction in the Historia Augusta is by now an established fact. The mischievous author of this work pretended, as we all know, to be writing historical biographies; but this pretense, though compelling the inclusion of genuine historical material, imposed no perceptible limits on his wit and invention."

Who is to say that part of the included "genuine historical materia"l is not "The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis" hmmm? Nothing.

So his contentions the letter itself is a forgery is based on a misreading of the two works he bothered to reference and a citation needed wikipedia article.

 

[pakeha]

I went over the wiki article on the HA and found that yes, it's full of citation needed warnings, warnings which receive some comments in the talk section.

However, what is documented in wiki is that the HA is generally regarded as a 4th century forgery, correct me if I'm wrong.
So it's not just the blogger at Tektonics who calls the HA a 4th century forgery, after all.

In any case, I'm puzzled.
Is your defense of the letter's usefulness really based on the idea it could somehow reflect some truth because Bonamente says the HA contains some historically accurate material?
And from this you conclude this particular letter, even though it comes from a 4th century forgery, is possibly accurate in its assessment of a possible link between the cults to Serapis and Christ?

Off to learn more.

 

[pakeha]

maximara wrote:
"Personally I am more inclined to believe a site that gives us references such publishers as Thames & Hudson, Routledge, and Cornell University Press"

An interesting observation.
Here's a link to the touregypt site, which maximara didn't include.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serapis.htm

Here's what the site actually says
"A correspondence of Emperor Hadrian refers to Alexandrian worshippers of Serapis calling themselves Bishops of Christ:

'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'

Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)

In fact, it appears that some followers of Serapis were eventually expelled from Rome when, in 19 AD, Tiberius also expelled the Jews.
Nevertheless, how great confusion between Serapis and Christ could have existed is really somewhat questionable. In 68 AD, a mob of pagans is said to have formed at the Serapis Temple in Alexandria, who then descended on the Christians who were celebrating Easter at Baucalis. There, they sized St. Mark, dragging him through the streets, before throwing him in prison. Clearly those worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions, though perhaps at a later date, some amongst the worshippers of either may have chosen to cover all of their options.
On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "Messiah", though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis. "
My hiliting

An interesting conclusion to that entry, one maximara doesn't mention.
As we see, the site doesn't include the text of the letter, as maximara claimed.
For that, and its context in the HA, we have to go here
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Firmus_et_al*.html#7

Curiously enough, while the touregypt article cites a source for the letter, it doesn't mention that source in the reference section.

 

[IanS]

Gday,



Nah, you must mean the earliest complete manuscripts.

But we have largely complete MSS, from around 200CE or so.

P46 contains much of Paul's writings from 200CE or so.

P75 contains much of Luke and John from 200 CE or so.


Kapyong

Afaik, even bible scholars generally accept that the first complete and readable (for detail) copies of any of the canonical gospels date to some time after 4th century (eg see previous links to discussion between Dawkins and bible scholar Huddlestun). In fact, afaik, mostly those copies date to the 6th century and later (see various pages in Wikipedia).

The problem with all these dates is that they are estimates made by individuals who are particularly interested in biblical history and the history of Jesus and Judeo-Christian religion. They are mostly not scientific or neutral dating by truly independent researchers with accurate methods. And whilst it's true there have been a few attempts to date some of the fragmented pieces by C14, iirc whilst C14 is good for much older artefacts, the error-range is really too large for accurate dating of items from around 1st century AD.

And of course, there is an obvious problem here with all interested parties, ie "biblical scholars" in general, wanting to support their belief in Jesus by giving the earliest possible date they can for any of the fragmented remains. So I think it's necessary to treat all mention of early dates with extreme caution ... the actual dates could be very much later.

P46 for the letters of Paul, for example, is generally said to date from around 200AD, but some estimates put it as early as c.130AD, and others as late as c.300AD. It should not surprise anyone to find out that the actual date of a document like that might very easily be much later than 300AD.

The problem with quoting dates in or around 1st century for the earliest fragments of any gospels, is that presumably (I have to presume this because I have never personally seen or handled any of those fragments, do not know how to accurately translate their ancient foreign language, and do not know any accurate way of truly dating the fragments anyway), they are too few in number to provide much detail about what their complete gospel might have originally said - a gospel actually written in the 1st century may well have said things quite different about Jesus compared to what we find in those complete later copies from 4th-6th century onwards.

 

[maximara]

I went over the wiki article on the HA and found that yes, it's full of citation needed warnings, warnings which receive some comments in the talk section.

However, what is documented in wiki is that the HA is generally regarded as a 4th century forgery, correct me if I'm wrong.

Wikipedia says "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of "deliberate mystification" written much later than its purported date, however the "fundamentalist view" still has distinguished support" ("The Cambridge History of Classical Literature", E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, p43, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714)

The problem here is The Cambridge History of Classical Literature is a multi volume work. The ISBN given is for The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate and it searchable at amazon.

The material regarding the Historia Augusta actually covers pages 42-45.

Reading through 42 reveals this on page 45: "...the Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution." So as bad as Historia Augusta may be the historian is basically stuck with it.

So it's not just the blogger at Tektonics who calls the HA a 4th century forgery, after all.

You do known that Tektonics is James Patrick Holding's blog right? That guy has demonstrated he couldn't research his way out of a paper bag with his Shattering the Christ Myth book. He can't carry on a reasonable conversation with people who point out his errors either, choosing to insult them instead.

 

[pakeha]

Too true about the tektonics blogger, maximara!
I should have simply quoted wiki.

Now, what sieve do you use to riddle any reliability out of that letter?
Distinguished support of the fundamentalist view?

Even the touregypt site questioned the letter, after all.

 

[maximara]

Too true about the tektonics blogger, maximara!
I should have simply quoted wiki.

Now, what sieve do you use to riddle any reliability out of that letter?
Distinguished support of the fundamentalist view?

Even the touregypt site questioned the letter, after all.

I don't see that. They say that "worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions" but would an non-worshipper see this?



Then you have this:

On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis.
If this is not from the letter but from the references below then the issue still remains.

Looking for more material on this I ran into the claim "According to Bishop Pliny, it is likely that the son of God Chrestus or "Anointed" the followers of the god Serapis were followers of the worship of Jesus Chrestus clergy had begun. In any case, this "Chrestus" god (Christos, or Christ was not a man who was crucified in Judea."

Elsewhere "There is some historical confusion surrounding the Ptolemaic cult of Serapis and the early Christians. Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis."

"Some even claim that Christus, or Chrestus, was another name for Serapis, since the names can both be translated as “the Messiah” or “anointed one.”"


The reference at the touregypt site should read Rev. Giles, John Allen (1877) Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii, p86. Giles was a fellow at Corpus Christi College, Oxford

 

[pakeha]

"They say that "worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions" but would an non-worshipper see this?"

Possibly, maximara, possibly, especially since those differences gave rise to street riots in the day. At least according to your own source, the tourist article.

I quoted the entire tourist article for the thread, didn't you read the conclusion? I even hilited it in a tasteful shade of cerulean frost, for your viewing pleasure.

"On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "Messiah", though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis."

And thanks for showing the the tourist article quotes a 19th century CoE divine for its snippet of text.
You have to wonder why they chose to do that, when the entire text is on-line, as I mentioned and linked to earlier.

I very much enjoyed the bishop Pliny reference, maximara and am off to read its source.
Thanks for giving me something to chuckle over as I head out to that ubiquitous den of globalisation, IKEA.

ETA
Found.
http://books.google.es/books?id=XNu...wers of the worship of Jesus Chrestus&f=false

The book's available at Amazon, too.
You have catholic tastes in your sources, maximara!

 

[eight bits]

Ah, Historia Augusta.

I wondered a bit about pakeha's University of Chicago link. I would have begun here:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/

attending to the following highlighted warning

The Historia Augusta poses special problems to the modern reader or researcher: if — either perusing the biographies in it at some length or seeking to mine the work for as little as a single small piece of information — you are not familiar with these problems, it is critically important that you become so before you put your foot in it. They are covered by the editor's introductory material on this site, but not very satisfactorily. Probably the most clear-headed exposition of it all can be found on Livius.Org's introduction to the Historia Augusta: read it.

The link recommended there is

http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html

which essay begins:

Historia Augusta: modern name of a collection of (bogus) biographies of Roman emperors of the second and third centuries.

What follows is a great read.

{Aside to pakeha: avatar = white kiwi; user name = pakeha; took me long enough to get it Enjoy IKEA. Good luck trying to read the instructions; lucky thing they don't sell chewing gum.}

 

[maximara]

Ah, Historia Augusta.

I wondered a bit about pakeha's University of Chicago link. I would have begun here:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/

attending to the following highlighted warning



The link recommended there is

http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html

which essay begins:


What follows is a great read.

Though a little wonky

The essay states early on:

"The fact that there seem to be two groups is interesting, because the four first authors lived during the reign of Diocletian, who persecuted the Christians, whereas Pollio and Vopiscus lived during the reign of the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire."

But then is states "As long ago as 1889, it has been suggested that the work was composed by one single author. (...) A more recent stylistic analysis using computer techniques has confirmed this hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt."

However wikipedia states "Computer-aided stylistic analysis of the work has, however, returned ambiguous results; some elements of style are quite uniform throughout the work, while others vary in a way that suggests multiple authorship."

A quick check shows passage seems to originate from "The atlas of Early Printing" but it actually says:

"Computer-aided stylistic analysis of the work has, however, returned ambiguous results; some elements of style are quite uniform throughout the work, while others vary in a way that suggests multiple authorship. To what extent this is due to the fact that portions of the work are obviously compiled from multiple sources is unclear. Several computer analyses of the text have been done to determine whether there were multiple authors. Many of them conclude that there was but a single author, but disagree on methodology. However, several studies done by the same team concluded there were several authors, though they were not sure how many."

"The Atlas is the creation of Greg Prickman, Head of Special Collections & University Archives at the University of Iowa Libraries. It is hosted by the University of Iowa Libraries." (about The Atlas)

In short claims of the work being a forgery appears to depend on misrepresentations of how the computer-aided stylistic analysis of the work went.

On regarding how people outside the religion might see it I present the anecdotal evidence of my Grandfather who when told I was going to Utah said Mormans were "like the Amish except they use electricity".

As Amish America shows some sects do use electricity...they just use it sparingly. But if you had Roman official that out of the loop would they have done any better separating "Christians" (followers of Christ) and "Chrestians" (followers of Chrestus aka Serapis)?

 

[pakeha]

Ah, Historia Augusta.

I wondered a bit about pakeha's University of Chicago link.... Enjoy IKEA. Good luck trying to read the instructions; lucky thing they don't sell chewing gum.}

I followed your link and had a lovely time reading. I ended up deciding IKEA on a Saturday afternoon couldn't compete with it, so the rods and fixings for my new curtains will just have to wait til I have a free afternoon and less interesting links to follow.

... But if you had Roman official that out of the loop would they have done any better separating "Christians" (followers of Christ) and "Chrestians" (followers of Chrestus aka Serapis)?

Thanks for a fascinating read that took me all over the web and back.
Chrestus/Serapis or Christ?
You have a point, maximara, of course.
Street riots in Alexandria over religious details seem to as regular as the rising of the Nile. I daresay the Roman officials ended up by rounding up the usual suspects and hoping the fanatics would preach themselves out.

 

[davefoc]

...
Thanks for a fascinating read that took me all over the web and back.
Chrestus/Serapis or Christ?
You have a point, maximara, of course.
Street riots in Alexandria over religious details seem to as regular as the rising of the Nile. I daresay the Roman officials ended up by rounding up the usual suspects and hoping the fanatics would preach themselves out.

I have sort of followed this. There is a book, Historia Augusta, that contains mini biographies of several Roman emperors. Some of the biographies in it are obviously bogus and some historians think the whole thing was just made up by a single individual. This conclusion is largely based on computer analysis of the writing which is not completely accepted by some other scholars. [This is not surprising to me, my sense of it is that this kind of computer analysis of writing is never definitive].

In the book there is a single sentence that suggests there may have been a connection between the origins of Christianity and Serapis, an Egyptian/Greek God that seems to have been invented during the reign of the Ptolemy's.

Maximara tends to think the reference might be allude to a true fact and Pakeha is skeptical. Wrapped up in all this is this Chrestus/Christ confusion thing that pops up every now and then.

So, Pakeha,

1. Did I roughly get the above correct?
2. Now, after your research of this, what are your conclusions?
3. There seems to be very little evidence of this alleged connection between Serapis and Jesus. Is that all there is?

 

[smartcooky]

I don't see that. They say that "worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions" but would an non-worshipper see this?

This maybe entirely inaccurate, and I can't cite any reference for this, but many years ago, my grandfather told me that early Christians "stole" the dates of their significant occurrences from the existing celebrations and rituals of other religions.

Christmas is a great example.
Jesus' birth is supposed to take place around the 25th of December, but that would conflict with the relevant passages in the NT (Luke 2:8-20), which talk of shepherds in the fields watching their flocks at night. Well, the end of December is winter time. Shepherds did not have their sheep in the fields, they would be locked up in stalls or pens at this time of year. If HJ really existed, and Luke 2:8-20 was accurate, then HJ's birth would have needed to be sometime between, say, April and October. The selection of December 25 effectively hijacks the vastly older Pagan celebrations of the winter solstice, a time when many historical polytheistic religions celebrated the rebirth of the year as the days started to lengthen into spring. I think it is no accident that the date of the Christian "birth of the Son of God", effectively a new beginning, just happens to be placed in time right next to an existing, at the time well known and widely celebrated "rebirth". The giving of gifts, the decoration of trees, particularly Yule and Holly, and kissing under the mistletoe, all began with the traditions of Pagan religions, and in doing so ourselves, we are continuing those traditions, which actually predate Christianity.

Easter is another example
Christians celebrate it on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon date after March 20. In selecting this date, they effectively hijacked celebratory dates of other religions;

Judaism. Jewish Passover is a holiday commemorating the Hebrews' exodus from slavery in Egypt. Due to differences in the way leap-years are dealt with in Judaism and Western Christianity, the calculation of the date is subtly different which leads to it not always coinciding exactly with Easter.

Pagan Religions. The Babylonian fertility goddess Ishtar (she actually had a number of different names in various cultures; Aphrodite, Astarte, Diana, Isis and Venus) had a son/consort called Tammuz, who was also known by a number of different names depending on cultures, Apollo, Hercules Horus, Krishna and Mithra. To the Babylonians, Tammuz was supposed to the God of the Harvest, and to the Sumerians, he was the shepherd-god, Dumuzid. The manner of his death changes depending on cultures, but they all talk of Ishtar creating a celebratory holy day (holiday) to honor his death and then resurrection. (sound familiar?) Not surprisingly, this celebration, which went on for around 40 days, started around the time of the vernal equinox.

Ishtar / Easter: Coincidence? To this day, we still celebrate Easter with egg hunts (eggs being the symbol of birth) and rabbits (known for their fertility) and in doing so, are continuing, not a Christian tradition, but a Pagan one that began thousands of years before Christianity.

 

[davefoc]

...

Ishtar / Easter: Coincidence? To this day, we still celebrate Easter with egg hunts (eggs being the symbol of birth) and rabbits (known for their fertility) and in doing so, are continuing, not a Christian tradition, but a Pagan one that began thousands of years before Christianity.

Since Easter is an English word, it seems like it might be just a coincidence. The person that wrote this article thought so:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ter-which-is-not-named-after-ishtar-okay.html

 

[smartcooky]

Since Easter is an English word, it seems like it might be just a coincidence. The person that wrote this article thought so:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ter-which-is-not-named-after-ishtar-okay.html

Well she's right. Easter is not named after Ishtar, but the problem is, she has correctly answered question that hasn't even been asked.

The English word "Easter" is actually derived from the Germanic word Ostara a Teutonic Festival, the name of which in turn is derived from the name of Goddess Eostra. She was the Goddess of Spring and fertility. "Eostra" is where the name for the hormone Oestrogen (Estrogen), the primary female sex hormone, comes from, derived from the Greek "oistros"; meaning sexual passion or desire.

So we have

Easter (modern english)
Eostra (Teutoic/German)
Haeustero (proto-Germanic)
Ishtar (Akkadian/Babylonian/Arabic)
Ostara (German Saxony)
Hester (Greek)
Austri (Old Norse)

All linked to traditions about death, resurrection, renewal and rebirth,
All linked to celebrations and festivities about the time of the vernal equinox.

Too many similarities to all be coincidences! IMO, this points toward a root cause, or at the very least, a shared ancient tradition.