Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Elagabalus]

...Secondly - the fact that some historians may believe in events like Thermopylae upon very poor or non-existent evidence such as pure anonymous hearsay alone, cannot be an honest or logical or educated reason why anyone should adopt such a ludicrously weak standard to claim that is also good enough to conclude that Jesus existed. Just because there is hopelessly bad evidential practice in historical studies, that would be no justification at all for saying we should therefore also accept such terrible practice to believe in Jesus.

Thirdly - in the case of the anonymous hearsay of the gospels, what that hearsay claimed as certainly true, and what it claimed as it’s entire proof of Jesus as the messiah who should be believed by all, has turned out to be a string of impossible claims that are certainly untrue miracles. So in the case of the gospels, this is anonymous hearsay claiming as it’s central and essential “fact” the certainty of impossible miracles on every page! But that is not comparable with other events like Thermopylae which you say historians believe on similarly weak anonymous hearsay either, is it! Thermopylae and the other events you are thinking of, do not consist only of anonymous hearsay claiming repeated impossible untrue fiction, do they? But the gospel hearsay is composed of that, isn’t it!...

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

Here is a very nice overview of where modern day biblical scholarship/consensus/authority is at this point in time (even though it was written in 2012) and he also gives a well reasoned explanation of why the dismissive handwaving and saying nuh-uh of the MJers hasn't made any headway in the scholarly consensus (there's that word again)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

If you're interested it is part of this series of essays.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/the-jesus-process-c/

The other two essays are, admittedly, a bit "ranty" but Maurice Casey makes some good points (the Egyptian hieroglyphic KRST "has no connection with the Jewish and Christian term ‘Christ’ " for example).

There's also a post about using Bayes theorem:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

Thanks for that. Bookmarked. My eye immediately alighted on this:

In order to explain just what it was that Paul and other early Christians believed, the mythicists are forced to manufacture unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth . . . about an unspecified supernatural entity that at an indefinite time was sent by God into the world as a man to save mankind and was crucified… [presenting us with] a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels.

I have been arguing that point, but with vastly less eloquence. I will peruse the essay with care and, I anticipate, pleasure and profit.

 

[zugzwang]

I think maybe that Hoffman is writing a book on HJ. I hope so, as his essays are usually well written and thoughtful. Of course, he is not popular with some atheists, as he has taken to slagging off New Atheists, for various reasons.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

Here is a very nice overview of where modern day biblical scholarship/consensus/authority is at this point in time (even though it was written in 2012) and he also gives a well reasoned explanation of why the dismissive handwaving and saying nuh-uh of the MJers hasn't made any headway in the scholarly consensus (there's that word again)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

If you're interested it is part of this series of essays.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/the-jesus-process-c/

The other two essays are, admittedly, a bit "ranty" but Maurice Casey makes some good points (the Egyptian hieroglyphic KRST "has no connection with the Jewish and Christian term ‘Christ’ " for example).

There's also a post about using Bayes theorem:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/

From the first link:

Yet to assume that Paul’s deliberate and defensive disuse of the tradition nullifies the tradition is abjectly nonsensical. The Christian story as we know it and celebrate it in the Church is basically Paul’s mythos, especially in its Eucharistic form. It is missing in John, who uses Eucharistic images in a different, arguably a more physical and anti-gnostic way (“I am the bread that has come down from heaven”), and works from a slightly different variation on the core salvation story. But it seems clear in both cases (Paul implicitly, the Fourth Gospel directly) that the writers are exploiting a prior tradition and that this tradition was centered on an historical figure named Jesus.[92]

Interpretation:
Just because Paul didn't mention Christ doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of an HJ.

Long looping phrases that go nowhere but will engulf you in their complexity.

 

[Belz...]

Interpretation:
Just because Paul didn't mention Christ doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of an HJ.

Sorry, how do you read that in that paragraph ?

 

[Belz...]

I have been arguing that point, but with vastly less eloquence.

Yes, same here. Those who say "we don't know", as I believe HansMustermann is saying, have a much better leg to stand on than someone who claims MJ. That's a positive claim, that's even less in evidence than HJ.

 

[tsig]

From the first link:

Yet to assume that Paul’s deliberate and defensive disuse of the tradition nullifies the tradition is abjectly nonsensical. The Christian story as we know it and celebrate it in the Church is basically Paul’s mythos, especially in its Eucharistic form. It is missing in John, who uses Eucharistic images in a different, arguably a more physical and anti-gnostic way (“I am the bread that has come down from heaven”), and works from a slightly different variation on the core salvation story. But it seems clear in both cases (Paul implicitly, the Fourth Gospel directly) that the writers are exploiting a prior tradition and that this tradition was centered on an historical figure named Jesus.[92]

Interpretation:
Just because Paul didn't mention Christ doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of an HJ.

Long looping phrases that go nowhere but will engulf you in their complexity.

Sorry, how do you read that in that paragraph ?

Hilited the key words, if you interpret it differently then please post it.

 

[Belz...]

Well Paul _DID_ mention Jesus. More than once.

 

[Brainache]

From the first link:

Yet to assume that Paul’s deliberate and defensive disuse of the tradition nullifies the tradition is abjectly nonsensical. The Christian story as we know it and celebrate it in the Church is basically Paul’s mythos, especially in its Eucharistic form. It is missing in John, who uses Eucharistic images in a different, arguably a more physical and anti-gnostic way (“I am the bread that has come down from heaven”), and works from a slightly different variation on the core salvation story. But it seems clear in both cases (Paul implicitly, the Fourth Gospel directly) that the writers are exploiting a prior tradition and that this tradition was centered on an historical figure named Jesus.[92]

Interpretation:
Just because Paul didn't mention Christ doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of an HJ.

Long looping phrases that go nowhere but will engulf you in their complexity.

I bet the Oxonian pay by the word...

 

[jobberone]

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

Here is a very nice overview of where modern day biblical scholarship/consensus/authority is at this point in time (even though it was written in 2012) and he also gives a well reasoned explanation of why the dismissive handwaving and saying nuh-uh of the MJers hasn't made any headway in the scholarly consensus (there's that word again)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

If you're interested it is part of this series of essays.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/the-jesus-process-c/

The other two essays are, admittedly, a bit "ranty" but Maurice Casey makes some good points (the Egyptian hieroglyphic KRST "has no connection with the Jewish and Christian term ‘Christ’ " for example).

There's also a post about using Bayes theorem:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/

Nice. Never figured out why the Canon is dismissed as myth or otherwise unworthy of adding historical context and content.

 

[maximara]

Brainache


Obviously not. Philo's role in an actual mistake doesn't parallel Tacitus' role in the hypothetical situation being examined.

Or, Perhaps you have some different notion of plausibility than "something similar is known to have happened." That is, ancient Christians accepted the credentials of earlier people, known to us not to have been Christians, based on reports about the non-Christians having something in common with later Christians, sort of. That's fine. Carry on.

On the substantive issue, ...

... if there was no Neronian scapegoating so that he could avoid suspicion of arson, then what Tacitus says about the incident is misinformation. So, let's assume there was.

Tacitus cannot be more confident that Nero correctly identified Chrtistians than Nero himself was. The most Tacitus could possibly know is that Nero said that his victims were Christians.

How would Nero know that? Why would Nero be particular about whom he fingered as scapegoats? Nero is lying about his victims being arsonists, but he'd never stoop to calling them Christians unless he was very, very sure that they really were? Uh huh.

An under-class nebbish caught up in a dragnet could walk away from an arson charge by cursing Christ and toasting the Emperor? On what planet is this?

Pliny, writing at about the same time as Tacitus, portrays himself as clueless what being a Christian is about. Tacitus' audience, then, is plausibly interested in what defines a Christian. Tacitus obliges. In explaining to his audience what a Christian was, based on his experience and research, Tacitus is not vouching that anybody whom Nero colorfully killed actually was a Christian.

Personally, I have no great worry whether or not there were any or many Christians in Rome by 64 CE. It's an idea, and ideas can spread quickly (cue maximara to say "John Frum"). But we have no widely accepted standard for what practices and beliefs constituted "being a Christian" at the time, and Tacitus very likely didin't, either.

All true and we don't know how fragmented Christianity was c64 CE which would have made identifying who was a Christian even more problematic for the Romans.

As I pointed out before we have Josephus and Pliny the Elder in Rome in 64. Josephus doesn't mention the fire but if Christians were being charged with its setting he should have mentioned that as yet another example of the woe of the Jewish people.

Pliny the Elder writes of the Fire and elsewhere he writes of the Essenes but not one word about Christians. Certainly if there were a large group of Christians being blamed for the fire he would have mentioned it...but he doesn't.

Again we have the situation that people who should have mentioned stuff don't.

 

[maximara]

Yes, same here. Those who say "we don't know", as I believe HansMustermann is saying, have a much better leg to stand on than someone who claims MJ. That's a positive claim, that's even less in evidence than HJ.

Except this "Jesus Agnosticism" as Eddy and Boyd called it is counted as part of the MJ position in their Jesus Legend book and they are not the only ones to put it in that category.

Also as I have repeated pointed out not all MJ positions are equal:

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

* Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.

* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism. (Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.

* The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd.

* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as a MJ in under this defintion.

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40)

Claiming the MJ as whole is a positive claim that's has even less in evidence than HJ is nonsense because Wood's and Bromiley's MJ are effectively the modern HJ position. The HJers can hem and haw but at the end of the day some of their HJ positions are MJ positions as they themselves have defined the MJ position!

 

[dejudge]

tsig


Oh, it's a great choice of ostensible perps. Who wanted Christians as neighbors? They met in secret, boasted about engaging in cannibalism, their girls were saving it for Jesus, and their demographic skewed to slaves and free riffraff. But Christians could have a bad reputation in Rome, without actually being in Rome in any numbers (like witches in Salem.)

The problem we're looking at is whether Nero had many Chrisitans available nearby whom he could treat specially. The difficulties with establishing that through Tacitus are:

~ Maybe the Neronian frame-up, as told by Tacitus, didn't actually happen.

~ If Nero was scapegoating, then he needed warm bodies with few friends whom he could say were Christians; he did not need actual Christians. Nobody was checking baptismal certificates when he lit them up. If Nero says the Christians did a bad thing, and that the party torches last night were Christians, who's going to say he misspoke?

Even if Nero did take some care to scapegoat only people with impeccable Christian credentials, what were "Christian credentials" at that time?

Ironically, Mark, allegedly written in Rome at about this time (I wouldn't take that for granted, but it is the tradition) has a story (at 9:38-41) about an exorcist, who has no other connection to Jesus, but performs exorcisms using Jesus' name. What was Jesus' reaction? Whoever isn't against us is for us, whoever provides us material comfort gets a cut of our action.

That's a very permissive standard for Christian affiliation, and supposedly I have that from the boss himself. What's Nero's incentive for demanding anything more of his victims? What's his incentive for demanding at least that much?

Brainache

in the 60's? There were catacombs, in use by Roman Christians, and Nero knew about it?

We're not in Tacitus anymore, Toto.

Enough of your stories!! You assumptions and speculation are worthless without evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Tacitus Christus was osbcure HJ.

There is no evidence at all that Christus was crucified.

There is no evidence that obscure HJ was crucified or crucified after the supposed disturbance at the Temple.,

HJers are now clinging to sources of forgeries and know fiction.

 

[David Mo]

Well I don't think I ever did say that "your claim that the standard for reliability in History must be the same than legal standards." or that " This refutes your claim that historians do not work with anonymous materials.".

What I said about it, is that we should follow that legal guideline here when we are presented with the gospels as evidence of Jesus.

“Follow legal guideline” is a very vague concept. There are some precise requests in a court: no second hand testimonies; no copies of writings; no verdict without material proofs. Which of these requirements is present in the Thermopylae case?

Are the historians bad scientists if they believe that battle of Thermopilae took place? No. They used a criterion of evidence weaker than the phisical sciences. It is all.

 

[David Mo]

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

“While the New Testament offers the most extensive evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus…” This is the beginning of the Joseph Hoffmann’s article you recommended (http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/). I absolutely disagree. I don’t know the “most extensive evidence of the existence” of Jesus. I know just some mere circumstancial evidence. Can you tell us some of the “extensive evidence" mentioned by Hoffmann? I’m sorry but the article is too long and I have not time to read it.

 

[pakeha]

Nice. Never figured out why the Canon is dismissed as myth or otherwise unworthy of adding historical context and content.

That's an interesting point of view, jobberone.
Could you share with us some "historical context and content" the Canon has added?

 

[Belz...]

Except this "Jesus Agnosticism" as Eddy and Boyd called it is counted as part of the MJ position in their Jesus Legend book and they are not the only ones to put it in that category.

Ok but I disagree with that. MJ has a specific meaning, even if it has several possible hypotheses.

 

[Belz...]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Tacitus Christus was osbcure HJ.

There is no evidence at all that Christus was crucified.

There is no evidence that obscure HJ was crucified or crucified after the supposed disturbance at the Temple.,

HJers are now clinging to sources of forgeries and know fiction.

Well at least you're backing off from your 100% myth nonsense.

 

[IanS]

Perhaps you would be interested to read what some of those actual scholars are actually saying ...

Here is a very nice overview of where modern day biblical scholarship/consensus/authority is at this point in time (even though it was written in 2012) and he also gives a well reasoned explanation of why the dismissive handwaving and saying nuh-uh of the MJers hasn't made any headway in the scholarly consensus (there's that word again)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

If you're interested it is part of this series of essays.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/the-jesus-process-c/

The other two essays are, admittedly, a bit "ranty" but Maurice Casey makes some good points (the Egyptian hieroglyphic KRST "has no connection with the Jewish and Christian term ‘Christ’ " for example).

There's also a post about using Bayes theorem:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/

Thanks for that. Bookmarked. My eye immediately alighted on this:

In order to explain just what it was that Paul and other early Christians believed, the mythicists are forced to manufacture unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth . . . about an unspecified supernatural entity that at an indefinite time was sent by God into the world as a man to save mankind and was crucified… [presenting us with] a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels.

I have been arguing that point, but with vastly less eloquence. I will peruse the essay with care and, I anticipate, pleasure and profit. .

You find that sort of passage (highlighted) impressive? That passage is not only manifestly dishonest, but also just an undisguised religious rant.

- firstly “mythicists” (whoever they are supposed to be) are not “forced to manufacture unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth” - no sceptic needs to say anything at all about any comments in Paul’s letters concerning any earlier groups of believers who Paul says he had once persecuted before his conversion. Why would any sceptic need to say anything at all about that? Jews in that region had clearly believed in the coming of a “Christ” ie the “Messiah” (not necessarily anyone named Jesus) for many centuries before Paul - that much was universal belief from their OT. So earlier believers in a messiah (“ie a Christ”) included every single Jew in that region.

Nor are any sceptics “forced to manufacture unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth … about an unspecified supernatural entity that at an indefinite time was sent by God into the world as a man to save mankind and was crucified…” - no sceptic has to do any such thing. It is Paul’s letters, not any mythicist or sceptics, that say Paul believed in a supernatural messiah named Yehoshua who was later crucified … that came from Paul 2000 years ago, not from any “mythicists” today. And afaik, no such earlier proto-Christian groups ever wrote to say they believed in anyone named Jesus anyway, and nor did they write saying anything about any crucifixion … all of that all comes from Paul’s letters.

And then that quote has the cheek to say the above is an example of “mythicists presenting us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels”. But as I just explained, none of that comes from any mytihicists of recent centuries, it all comes from 2000 years ago in Paul’s letters and from as far back as 500BC in Jewish belief in their OT.

So that sort of passage highlighted above, which Craig finds so compelling and inspiring, is actually just a totally dishonest religious rant against so called “mythicists” who the author does not like on account of them disagreeing with his bible beliefs in Jesus, and pointing out that all of these beliefs actually come from the highly unreliable writing of supernatural beliefs in letters of Paul and the gospels.

Am I interested in reading yet more links to pages of stuff like that? After all the hundreds of pages we have already had here with evasion after evasion and never a single shred of any reliable independent honest evidence of Jesus …. No, not really.

 

[IanS]

“Follow legal guideline” is a very vague concept. There are some precise requests in a court: no second hand testimonies; no copies of writings; no verdict without material proofs. Which of these requirements is present in the Thermopylae case?

Are the historians bad scientists if they believe that battle of Thermopilae took place? No. They used a criterion of evidence weaker than the phisical sciences. It is all.

Oh, I'm sure that historians are forced to rely upon a standard of evidence far below that which is required to establish scientific theory. But then, I have said exactly that already many times here. So that is not something about which you and I have ever disagreed.

We are not asking bible scholars for rigorous science "Theory" and mathematical "proofs".

But equally that does not mean anyone here should be so naïve as to accept the biblical writing as if it were reliable evidence for a supernatural messiah figure believed by religious fanatics none of whom had ever known any such person in any way at all (except through religious faith).