Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Belz...]

Gee I'd like someone to propose a scenario for the birth of Christianity that fits known history better than the HJ one.

 

[tsig]

Gee I'd like someone to propose a scenario for the birth of Christianity that fits known history better than the HJ one.

The Great Revolt totally disrupted Jewish life and people were desperate for answers about the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman occupation. Stories arose about a messiah who had come and saved the Jewish nation but his salvation was of a spiritual nature rather than a political one. As scholars studied the OT the stories coalesced about a rabbi who was killed yet triumphed over the Romans. Details were added to details til a coherent story was woven together.

 

[Belz...]

I did mention it has to fit with known history, Tsig. How do you support your speculation ?

 

[davefoc]

Gee I'd like someone to propose a scenario for the birth of Christianity that fits known history better than the HJ one.

The problem is that an HJ is not necessary to get Christianity going. It is clear the people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up. I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this but I am fairly sure that Christianity grew out of an existing religious offshoot of Judaism. The records of that initial group, if they ever existed are completely lost so nobody will never know what went on in that group during the formation of Christianity.

It certainly seems plausible to me that the group instead of making almost everything up made everything up or perhaps the initial beliefs of the group with regard to the messiah just morphed into something else as the religion developed.

I am just not sure that an HJ is the simpler explanation and the more likely explanation for the origin of Christianity. And even if there is an HJ in there some place can we limit the possibilities to some sort of minimal HJ? Maybe not. When the possibility that the source of the Jesus legend could have been an amalgamation of characters or it could have been an inspiration from a person that might have lived 100 years before the hypothetical HJ can't be ruled out with the available evidence, it just might be that whatever is called evidence with regard to this is just too unreliable and ambiguous to even support reliable estimates of the probabilities.

Some of the people in this thread have mentioned the alleged scholarly consensus as support for the existence of an HJ. Speaking as a person that has been on both sides of the fence on this issue, confirmation bias is just an amazingly powerful influence on my thinking. I am amazed to see how when my overall views change, my opinions about the significance of the evidence and how receptive I am to new evidence changes along with my overall views. I just don't trust a "scholarly consensus" when the underlying evidence is shaky and judgments can be driven by confirmation biases.

 

[davefoc]

The Great Revolt totally disrupted Jewish life and people were desperate for answers about the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman occupation. Stories arose about a messiah who had come and saved the Jewish nation but his salvation was of a spiritual nature rather than a political one. As scholars studied the OT the stories coalesced about a rabbi who was killed yet triumphed over the Romans. Details were added to details til a coherent story was woven together.

It might have happened like that, but your story implies that Christianity arose in the Jerusalem area. I'm not sure of that even, but perhaps the evidence is better for that than I realize. Could Christianity have arisen amongst Hellenistic Jews living in the Jerusalem area, Hellenistic Jews displaced from the Jerusalem area or even Gentiles members of a God-fearer group? It seems like pinning that down should be easier than pinning down whether there was an HJ, but as near as I can tell it isn't even possible to do that. And some people like to throw the Essenes into the mix as well.

I do think it's interesting that Christianity arose during the time of rebellions against the Romans. It seems like there is a clue there as to what might have happened but I don't know how to interpret that clue with regard to the rise of Christianity. It is also interesting that the Jews had come through a big civil war not that long before the time of the hypothetical HJ and the tension between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditionalists who won the civil war may not have totally disappeared by the time of the hypothetical HJ. Maybe there's a clue there to what went on as well, but I don't know what to make of it.

The rebellions against Rome play a role in what I think of as the standard Christian history narrative. The theory is that the Jerusalem Jewish Christians (the James group) that had founded Christianity were wiped out in the one of the two big rebellions against the Romans and that's the reason that all evidence of them disappeared. Maybe. But maybe they just never existed in the first place.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that an HJ is not necessary to get Christianity going.

I never said it was. I said it's the best scenario we have so far. How often do I have to repeat this ?

It is clear the people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up.

Yes. As usual we're looking for the best explanation for that. Saying that it started as a celestial Jesus not only doesn't give a better explanation, it adds a needless entity to the hypothesis, and one that isn't in evidence at that, so at the very least it has all the problems of HJ, plus it goes against Occam. But we both know that HJ isn't without evidence, however weak that evidence is.

I am just not sure that an HJ is the simpler explanation and the more likely explanation for the origin of Christianity.

For one, it fits with everything that we do know. To me that's the tipping point.

 

[Brainache]

It might have happened like that, but your story implies that Christianity arose in the Jerusalem area. I'm not sure of that even, but perhaps the evidence is better for that than I realize. Could Christianity have arisen amongst Hellenistic Jews living in the Jerusalem area, Hellenistic Jews displaced from the Jerusalem area or even Gentiles members of a God-fearer group? It seems like pinning that down should be easier than pinning down whether there was an HJ, but as near as I can tell it isn't even possible to do that. And some people like to throw the Essenes into the mix as well.

I do think it's interesting that Christianity arose during the time of rebellions against the Romans. It seems like there is a clue there as to what might have happened but I don't know how to interpret that clue with regard to the rise of Christianity. It is also interesting that the Jews had come through a big civil war not that long before the time of the hypothetical HJ and the tension between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditionalists who won the civil war may not have totally disappeared by the time of the hypothetical HJ. Maybe there's a clue there to what went on as well, but I don't know what to make of it.

The rebellions against Rome play a role in what I think of as the standard Christian history narrative. The theory is that the Jerusalem Jewish Christians (the James group) that had founded Christianity were wiped out in the one of the two big rebellions against the Romans and that's the reason that all evidence of them disappeared. Maybe. But maybe they just never existed in the first place.

You know that virtually all the cities in Judea were destroyed in that war, not just Jerusalem, don't you?

You should also be aware that there were "Christians" in Rome before the War.

Tacitus calls them "Chrestians" or "Christians" depending on who you trust, but later Christians had no doubt that Nero persecuted them for burning Rome around the time that James was killed in the early 60s.

Have you read Josephus' "War"? I think you might find answers to some of your questions there.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/

 

[davefoc]

I never said it was. I said it's the best scenario we have so far. How often do I have to repeat this ?
...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you believed otherwise. I was just trying to put forth my own thinking on this.

So I am guessing the scenario you see as most likely is that there was a Jerusalem area Jewish sect in which the HJ plays some sort of role. Either the sect disburses its message outside the Jerusalem area or the word of the sect makes its way into Gentile groups that adopt the HJ as the basis of their religion.

Possibly Hellenistic Jews played some role in the development of Christianity or perhaps the Gentile group develops Christianity and because of the close relationship between the Gentile group and the Hellenistic Jews the developing Christian religion spreads to the Hellenistic Jewish groups.

 

[davefoc]

You know that virtually all the cities in Judea were destroyed in that war, not just Jerusalem, don't you?

You should also be aware that there were "Christians" in Rome before the War.

Tacitus calls them "Chrestians" or "Christians" depending on who you trust, but later Christians had no doubt that Nero persecuted them for burning Rome around the time that James was killed in the early 60s.

Have you read Josephus' "War"? I think you might find answers to some of your questions there.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/

The evidence for Christians living in Rome in the early 60's seems to consist of something that Tacitus wrote in about 116 CE. I think this evidence is problematical. There are various arguments against the reliability of the evidence. FWIW, Richard Carrier doesn't believe the passage was forged, but even if it wasn't Tacitus could have been basing the paragraph on what Christians told him. My guess right now is that there weren't enough Christians in Rome in the early 60's for Nero to have given a crap about them so I doubt that the interpretation of the passage that Nero made the Christians scape goats for the fires is accurate.

ETA: Thanks for the link. I haven't looked at it yet and I am procrastinating right now and the guilt is building up so I think I'm going to move on to doing something productive. And even if the guilt isn't enough to motivate me, my wife's patience at my procrastination might be wearing thin. So I think I better look at it later.

 

[Brainache]

The evidence for Christians living in Rome in the early 60's seems to consist of something that Tacitus wrote in about 116 CE. I think this evidence is problematical. There are various arguments against the reliability of the evidence. FWIW, Richard Carrier doesn't believe the passage was forged, but even if it wasn't Tacitus could have been basing the paragraph on what Christians told him. My guess right now is that there weren't enough Christians in Rome in the early 60's for Nero to have given a crap about them so I doubt that the interpretation of the passage that Nero made the Christians scape goats for the fires is accurate.

ETA: Thanks for the link. I haven't looked at it yet and I am procrastinating right now and the guilt is building up so I think I'm going to move on to doing something productive. And even if the guilt isn't enough to motivate me, my wife's patience at my procrastination might be wearing thin. So I think I better look at it later.

I just wrote a post about Tacitus in a different thread (I wish they'd merge these HJ threads), but basically I think Tacitus was a competent Chronicler, who knew what he was talking about.

He would have heard about the Christian burning and whatever from many different sources throughout his life. The Fire and its aftermath were huge events, you can't seriously think that the people of Rome had forgotten about them in just 50 years.

The link is to the Complete Works Of Josephus, so if you value your marriage, yes, it might be best to start on it when you have lots of free time...

 

[pakeha]

The evidence for Christians living in Rome in the early 60's seems to consist of something that Tacitus wrote in about 116 CE. I think this evidence is problematical. There are various arguments against the reliability of the evidence. FWIW, Richard Carrier doesn't believe the passage was forged, but even if it wasn't Tacitus could have been basing the paragraph on what Christians told him. My guess right now is that there weren't enough Christians in Rome in the early 60's for Nero to have given a crap about them so I doubt that the interpretation of the passage that Nero made the Christians scape goats for the fires is accurate.
...

Yes, I've come across opinions on the matter of Nero's persecution of Christians as being made of whole cloth. Could the whole subject have been made up?

 

[Brainache]

Yes, I've come across opinions on the matter of Nero's persecution of Christians as being made of whole cloth. Could the whole subject have been made up?

I've seen someone (guess who) argue that the execution of James caused unrest with the Jews/Christians (at this stage not entirely separate) in Rome. There was a fire, Nero blamed the Christians (There is some family connection there, because of the Catacombs of Domitilla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome#Catacombs_of_Domitilla ). Not long after that, he sent the Legions into Palestine under Vespasian and Titus.

It is a very tenuous connection.

 

[maximara]

Yes, I've come across opinions on the matter of Nero's persecution of Christians as being made of whole cloth. Could the whole subject have been made up?

Suetonius mentions in the section on Nero "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." so there may have been some persecution of Christians in Rome in the time of Nero.

It is possible the account was made up by Christians and picked up by Roman historians as fact but it is clear that neither Suetonius or Tacitus were fans of the movement.

Compounding matters is that Chrestos may have been another name for Serapis aka Osiris and was used as a adjective and even a title before, during, and after the time of "Christ" (Mitchell, James Barr (1880) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence; Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013.)

If there was a group calling themselves Chrestians (ie followers of Chrestos be he Osiris or a person of that name) about then things become a tangled mess as to who Suetonius or Tacitus were referring to.

 

[dejudge]

The problem is that an HJ is not necessary to get Christianity going. It is clear the people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up. I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this but I am fairly sure that Christianity grew out of an existing religious offshoot of Judaism. The records of that initial group, if they ever existed are completely lost so nobody will never know what went on in that group during the formation of Christianity.

How can you be "fairly sure " when you admit your so-called evidence is lost and nobody will ever know what went on?

We have some evidence from early Christianity but you are looking in the wrong century. WE have evidence from the 2nd century.

If you read the NT and apologetics you will see that the Jesus cult of Christians wanted to abolish Judaism.

In gMatthew, the Jesus character shows his dislike for the Pharisees, Saducees and Scribes. In gJohn, the Jesus character claimed the Jews are of the Devil. Virtually, all apologetics claimed the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

The Jesus cult used the Septuagint but claimed the Jews did NOT understand their own Bible.

It certainly seems plausible to me that the group instead of making almost everything up made everything up or perhaps the initial beliefs of the group with regard to the messiah just morphed into something else as the religion developed.

It is virtually impossible to claim events are plausible without having the evidence to support such claims.

What you say is plausible cannot be shown to be true because you have no evidence.

 

[IanS]

The problem is that an HJ is not necessary to get Christianity going. It is clear the people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up. I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this but I am fairly sure that Christianity grew out of an existing religious offshoot of Judaism. The records of that initial group, if they ever existed are completely lost so nobody will never know what went on in that group during the formation of Christianity.

It certainly seems plausible to me that the group instead of making almost everything up made everything up or perhaps the initial beliefs of the group with regard to the messiah just morphed into something else as the religion developed.

When you say "people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up" and say "I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this", why don't you just note the fact that the biblical writers were very clearly taking their Jesus stories from the OT?

It's fairly obvious that the OT was a source for the biblical stories of Jesus, is it not?

Paul even repeatedly says he obtained all his knowledge of Jesus from “scripture“, from what “is written” and from “revelation”.

Where is the great mystery in guessing where the Jesus stories came from?

 

[Brainache]

The problem is that an HJ is not necessary to get Christianity going. It is clear the people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up. I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this but I am fairly sure that Christianity grew out of an existing religious offshoot of Judaism. The records of that initial group, if they ever existed are completely lost so nobody will never know what went on in that group during the formation of Christianity.
...

Just curious, but why do you rule out the DSS here?

 

[Brainache]

When you say "people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up" and say "I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this", why don't you just note the fact that the biblical writers were very clearly taking their Jesus stories from the OT?

It's fairly obvious that the OT was a source for the biblical stories of Jesus, is it not?

Paul even repeatedly says he obtained all his knowledge of Jesus from “scripture“, from what “is written” and from “revelation”.

Where is the great mystery in guessing where the Jesus stories came from?

How do John the Baptist, James and Peter etc fit into your scenario?

Oh, that's right, you're "just asking questions".

 

[tsig]

I did mention it has to fit with known history, Tsig. How do you support your speculation ?

Are you saying the Great Revolt didn't happen?

Same way you support your speculation that there were some itinerant Jewish rabbis and one of them developed int the HJ.

 

[davefoc]

When you say "people that wrote about the HJ were making stuff up" and say "I realized I haven't presented good evidence for this", why don't you just note the fact that the biblical writers were very clearly taking their Jesus stories from the OT?

It's fairly obvious that the OT was a source for the biblical stories of Jesus, is it not?

Paul even repeatedly says he obtained all his knowledge of Jesus from “scripture“, from what “is written” and from “revelation”.

Where is the great mystery in guessing where the Jesus stories came from?

FWIW, I think the Gospels were fiction and that they were created by people who had no direct knowledge of a Jesus movement originating in Palestine but who did have a deep knowledge of and belief in the Septuagint.* But I don't rule out the possibility that the Gospels might contain some truth about the nature of an HJ derived from oral sources.

I don't think the Christian movement began with the writing of the Gospels and when I say that I don't have good evidence for this I am referring to the earlier group that Christianity began in and my belief that this group was a God-fearer group. For the sake of practical history I don't think it matters whether there was an identifiable HJ or not. I think Christianity as it is known today originated in the God-fearer group and if the religion they created happened to be inspired by a real individual born in about 0 CE or not is of no importance to the history of Christianity.

I see the history of Christianity as beginning sometime before 0 BCE, perhaps as far back as the creation of the Septuagint. I think the earliest periods are shrouded in an opaque fog that gradually thins until a little before 200 CE when writings with reliable attributions and somewhat reliable copies of the writings begin to appear. From about 100 CE onward Christian writings can be tentatively attributed and the writings can often be reconstructed because Christina writers that wrote in this phase of Christian history were quoted so often.

And, I hope it goes without saying by now, I'm not sure of any of this. These are just my current views that if history is any guide might change again.

*I think this means I agree with you on this IanS

 

[davefoc]

Just curious, but why do you rule out the DSS here?

I don't rule out much as far as the possible nature of the HJ goes. Are you specifically referring to the Jesus was the teacher of righteous theory or something else?

Besides the DSS there is also the stuff in the Talmud which is put forth as possible origins of the Jesus mythology. Do you have a view on that stuff?