The Historical Jesus III

[carlitos]

The "Christ Myth" Theory

Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Threads tagged with "historical Jesus" on ISF (lots of them)

 

[maximara]

But the NT order, and the largely similar P46 order, have nothing to do with chronology anyway. I have cited sources which state the principle of the order of the Epistles.

In the same way the order of the suras in the Quran tells us nothing about the order in which these chapters were composed.

So what?

I agree. I don't see how the order in what amounts to an anthology has any relevance to chronology.

 

[dejudge]

I agree. I don't see how the order in what amounts to an anthology has any relevance to chronology.

Well, you still have nothing [not even Acts] to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE.

You still have no evidence that any letter of Papyri 46 was composed in the 1st century before c 70 CE and have no historical data for "Paul".

The DSS cannot help you.

Based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity the Pauline Corpus are LATE 2nd century or later writings and was UNKNOWN and NOT yet fabricated up to c 180 CE or up to the writings attributed to Celsus called "True Discourse".

Christian writers have adnmitted that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John, that Pauline writers knew gLuke and that Celsus wrote Nothing of Paul c 175-180 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is historically bogus.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus and the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

 

[dejudge]

...It is highly possible that the original story was a simple tale of a mortal man that had a fantastical elements added in an attempt to gain followers in the busy deity market.

You seem not to understand that there are two fundamental arguments.

1. It is highly possible that the original story was a simple myth fable.

2. It is highly possible that the original story was a simple tale of a man.

Now, we are at the stage of PRESENTING the supporting evidence.

There is NO evidence from antiquity to show that there was an historical Jesus a man with a human father.

All existing manuscripts state Jesus was God Creator, the Lord God from heaven, or a Transfiguring Water walking Son of a God born of a Ghost.

One can SPECULATE that Jesus of Nazareth may have possibly existed BUT can NEVER argue such a position.

An argument for historicity requires historical data--Speculation requires NOTHING but Faith.

 

[dejudge]

It is obvious that those who argue for an historical Jesus have nothing to support their argument but logical fallacies, forgeries, false attribution and fiction stories derived from the NT.

Examine page 188 of Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

"What if a story or kind of story is found in a large number of sources?

That kind of story is far more likely to be historically accurate than a story found in only one source.

1. Multiple sources claim that a Holy Ghost Bird landed on Jesus when he baptized by John--based on Bart Ehrman's logical fallacies, the Holy Ghost Bird most likely did land upon Jesus at the Baptism.

2. Multiple sources claim Jesus WALKED on Water-- based on Bart Ehrman's logical fallacies Jesus most likely did Walk on water.

3. Multiple sources claim Jesus did Transfigure--- based on Bart Ehrman's logical fallacies Jesus most likely did transfigure.

4. Multiple sources claim Jesus resurrected AFTER he was dead--based on Bart Ehrman's logical fallacies Jesus most likely did resurrect AFTER he was dead.

It should be obvious to Bart Ehrman that the repetition of stories about Jesus has NOTHING whatsoever to do with historical accuracy.

Bart Ehrman openly contradicted himself.

Multiple sources claimed Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Bart Ehrman argues Jesus was born in Nazareth--NOT Bethlehem-- even though NO source of antiquity made such a claim.

Bart Ehrman's argument for an HJ of Nazareth makes no sense [void of logic].

 

[maximara]

Even after becoming an atheist (long ago), I have always just assumed that there was pretty solid evidence for there having been some historical man named Jesus, who might have taught some of the things the Biblical Jesus taught, and around whom the legend grew.

I always thought the mythicist position was of the "Zeitgeist" variety, with rather dubious, low quality claims.


The idea that people would have written such an influential personal history of a figure, inventing the whole of it, rather than it having SOME basis in a historical, real person, seemed to me to be just an unnecessary complication.

That is what Carrier's view on the matter was until he read Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle treating it like a peer review paper and found it to be well researched and documented.

To be fair the majority of Christ Myth material out there is about as bad as "Zeitgeist" is or if it has some good points it is buried under layers of out right goofy.

What I'm interested is if anyone has read the book, and is more deeply learned in the issues surrounding historicity, what's your take?

Carrier provides the one thing that has been missing from the Christ myth theory: the background forces that would have made such an theory viable.

Up to Carrier the Christ myth idea was a wildly shifting morass the story of Jesus was a fiction to Jesus himself was a fiction with nearly any connection to preexisting mythology presented. (Doherty stated that The Jesus Myth by G. A. Wells was one of five books in 1999 that said the Gospel Jesus did not exist...which is way different from saying the man didn't exist at all)

Carrier set forth criteria clearly identifying what he meant by a historical and mythical Jesus. He also left a third option: the ahistorical Jesus.

The ahistorical Jesus is the place between Carrier's historical and mythical definitions. What we have there is a Jesus on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur. In fact, King Arthur is a case in point. Carrier believes King Arthur did not exist while Robert Price thinks there is just enough to show he did.

Idea that fall into this ahistorical Jesus category are:

* John Robertson's 1900 idea that the Gospel Jesus was a composite character or that a person inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, tried to preach his own version of Paul's teachings, and got killed for his troubles.

* The idea expressed by Remsberg in 1909 that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

* G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" but Jesus is not entirely a supernatural being either.

* Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372)


It is not outside the realm of possibly that Paul did have a vision involving a obscure local teacher and that people later used the actions of other messiahs to create a back story that matched Paul's vision.

And knowing full well that I've now given one side of the argument much more attention than the other, what would you recommend as a book defending historicity, that makes the best case? Is there a definitive defense of the historicity of Jesus, that I could place beside and compare with Carrier's treatise on the subject?

Carrier himself recommends Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus both of which he regards as "inadequate but nevertheless competent, if not always correct"

 

[Craig B]

That is what Carrier's view on the matter was until he read Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle treating it like a peer review paper and found it to be well researched and documented ... etc

Carrier provides the one thing that has been missing from the Christ myth theory: the background forces that would have made such an theory viable ... etc

Up to Carrier the Christ myth idea was a wildly shifting morass ...
Carrier set forth criteria clearly identifying what he meant by a historical and mythical Jesus. He also left a third option: the ahistorical Jesus.

Carrier himself himself recommends ... etc.

That's pretty much how I viewed it, prior to Carrier's book on the subject. He presents a lot of historical information on the culture and context of the time when Christianity was formed, which seem to make the mythicist position more likely. He presents other examples, both from history, and in relatively modern times, when a religious cult has formed that created it's "savior", and treated him/her as a historical figure, despite them being (in the case of historical myths) clearly recognized as purely mythical, and in more modern examples, clearly provable as purely mythical. (The modern examples are cargo cults)

He also shows that the Jesus story was full of elements ... etc

His arguments go a lot deeper that this superficial pick of a couple of salient points. I do recommend picking up the book ... etc

I also know Carrier thought it [Ehrman's book] disappointingly weak ... etc

This is like some bizarre cult. Not since Khrushchev denounced Stalin have we seen exaltation of the wisdom of a great Thinker carried to such fantastic lengths. I'm glad at least that these effusions are now concentrated in a single thread.

 

[Atol]

It is my opinion that in an age of oral tradtion that as single original account could as it spreads round the known world gain and lose elements. Variations arising through translation and other errors and deliberate amendments resulting in 4 different versions of the same original story.

It is highly possible that the original story was a simple tale of a mortal man that had a fantastical elements added in an attempt to gain followers in the busy deity market.

We can prove this point with Kids and adults. Tell a story in a school or at work. Make it simple maybe 2 pages long But don't let them Write it down. They can tell anyone in school or work as many times as they want. Also tell them to have Their friend tell the same story. Then take those people after a year and have them tell you the story as you told them. Also find people they told the story to. Then see how much the story has changed.

 

[dejudge]

It is my opinion that in an age of oral tradtion that as single original account could as it spreads round the known world gain and lose elements. Variations arising through translation and other errors and deliberate amendments resulting in 4 different versions of the same original story.

It is highly possible that the original story was a simple tale of a mortal man that had a fantastical elements added in an attempt to gain followers in the busy deity market.

We can prove this point with Kids and adults. Tell a story in a school or at work. Make it simple maybe 2 pages long But don't let them Write it down. They can tell anyone in school or work as many times as they want. Also tell them to have Their friend tell the same story. Then take those people after a year and have them tell you the story as you told them. Also find people they told the story to. Then see how much the story has changed.

Well, based on what you say it can be proven that the Jesus story was just "Chinese Whispers" and not eyewitness historical accounts.

Some one told stories about the son of a Ghost or Ghost stories and people of antiquity believed them.

1. The author of gMark claimed Jesus was a Transfiguring Water walker who was raised from the dead.'

2. Then gMatthew added more fiction and stated Jesus was born of a Ghost who visited the disciples in Galilee AFTER he was supposed to be dead.

3. Later, the author of gLuke admitted Jesus was really born of a Ghost but ADDED MORE FICTION by claiming Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud.

4. After that, gJohn added more blatant fiction stating Jesus was God Creator from the beginning.

5. The author of Acts again added more fiction and claimed the Ascended Jesus SENT a Ghost from heaven to give the disciples power to preach the Gospel.

6. Last of all, writers under the name of Paul attempted to confirm the fiction story by claiming THEY were WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The versions of the Jesus stories in the NT are blatant monstrous fiction fables and could not have been products of eyewitness accounts.

By the way, the NT only contains some of the Ghost stories called Gospels.

It must not be forgotten that people of antiquity [even today] did believe Ghosts were figures of history.

The Roman Goverment since the 4th century did concede that Jesus was truly born of a Ghost and was God of God.

Rome was founded by one who was ALSO born of a Ghost and a Virgin called Romulus.

 

[maximara]

This is like some bizarre cult. Not since Khrushchev denounced Stalin have we seen exaltation of the wisdom of a great Thinker carried to such fantastic lengths. I'm glad at least that these effusions are now concentrated in a single thread.

Does the FACT Carrier manage to jump through the required hoops of peer review to get his work published by a recognized academic publisher worry you so much that you have to resort to calling reference to his work a "cult" or any other derogatory nonsense you can come up with?

If we invoke Sturgeon's Law then 90% of the material for both the historical Jesus and Christ Myth theory is crap. Carrier at least cuts through some of the worst nonsense and give us something on an academic level to work with rather then the latests self published twaddle that this topic has produced.

 

[Craig B]

Does the FACT Carrier manage to jump through the required hoops of peer review to get his work published by a recognized academic publisher worry you so much that you have to resort to calling reference to his work a "cult" or any other derogatory nonsense you can come up with?

No. It's the FACT that

... Not since Khrushchev denounced Stalin have we seen exaltation of the wisdom of a great Thinker carried to such fantastic lengths.

But on the other hand

I'm glad at least that these effusions are now concentrated in a single thread.

Wait a moment, what's this?

If we invoke Sturgeon's Law then 90% of the material for both the historical Jesus and Christ Myth theory is crap. Carrier at least cuts through some of the worst nonsense and give us something on an academic level to work with rather then the latests self published twaddle that this topic has produced.

Oh God, more effusions!

 

[Atol]

Well, based on what you say it can be proven that the Jesus story was just "Chinese Whispers" and not eyewitness historical accounts.

Some one told stories about the son of a Ghost or Ghost stories and people of antiquity believed them.

1. The author of gMark claimed Jesus was a Transfiguring Water walker who was raised from the dead.'

2. Then gMatthew added more fiction and stated Jesus was born of a Ghost who visited the disciples in Galilee AFTER he was supposed to be dead.

3. Later, the author of gLuke admitted Jesus was really born of a Ghost but ADDED MORE FICTION by claiming Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud.

4. After that, gJohn added more blatant fiction stating Jesus was God Creator from the beginning.

5. The author of Acts again added more fiction and claimed the Ascended Jesus SENT a Ghost from heaven to give the disciples power to preach the Gospel.

6. Last of all, writers under the name of Paul attempted to confirm the fiction story by claiming THEY were WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The versions of the Jesus stories in the NT are blatant monstrous fiction fables and could not have been products of eyewitness accounts.

By the way, the NT only contains some of the Ghost stories called Gospels.

It must not be forgotten that people of antiquity [even today] did believe Ghosts were figures of history.

The Roman Goverment since the 4th century did concede that Jesus was truly born of a Ghost and was God of God.

Rome was founded by one who was ALSO born of a Ghost and a Virgin called Romulus.

We can even look one person telling the same story over time and we see it change. Let take Brian Williams and the helicopter being shot at. That was the first story. Then it was hit in another story. Then it was shot down was the last story. As we can see the story told over time. The user Bloated the same story to suite his needs. Well in Brian Williams case. It got him in trouble.

 

[Mcreal]

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

as could other NT characters - James, Paul, etc

 

[Craig B]

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

as could other NT characters - James, Paul, etc

The Christians made a more interesting use of the principle.

The early Christian apologists deployed the euhemerist argument to support their position that pagan mythology was merely an aggregate of fables of human invention. Cyprian, a North African convert to Christianity, wrote a short essay De idolorum vanitate ("On the Vanity of Idols") in 247 AD that assumes the euhemeristic rationale as though it needed no demonstration. Cyprian begins:

That those are no gods whom the common people worship, is known from this: they were formerly kings, who on account of their royal memory subsequently began to be adored by their people even in death. Thence temples were founded to them; thence images were sculptured to retain the countenances of the deceased by the likeness; and men sacrificed victims, and celebrated festal days, by way of giving them honour. Thence to posterity those rites became sacred, which at first had been adopted as a consolation.

So beings who had started out as mere mortals on earth, were reinterpreted as gods after their deaths. I believe that this is what happened to Jesus.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes, it seems most myths are attributed to previously real people, and real people have been deified or partially deified (such as Alexander the Great being said to have been fathered by Zeus, or various events alleged about his mother's womb), but the contrary is, of course, also possible, especially for characters such as those in the New Testament.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, it seems most myths are attributed to previously real people, and real people have been deified or partially deified (such as Alexander the Great being said to have been fathered by Zeus, or various events alleged about his mother's womb), but the contrary is, of course, also possible, especially for characters such as those in the New Testament.

Do you really think this?

... mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores as could other NT characters - James, Paul, etc

That Paul originated as a celestial myth, and was only later reinterpreted as a human character? I find that quite impossible to believe.

 

[Mcreal]

Paul need not have originated as a *celestial* myth.

If the NT Paul is based on a real person, that person may not have been a 1st century preacher. Paul may not have been preaching about Jesus Christ. He may have been preaching about another god, and his epistles later redacted to align with the Jesus narrative. Or the epistles may have been written about him; or been written about a couple of preachers, and conflated or confabulated into one character.

 

[dejudge]

The Christians made a more interesting use of the principle. So beings who had started out as mere mortals on earth, were reinterpreted as gods after their deaths. I believe that this is what happened to Jesus.

We already know what YOU BELIEVE.

You don't have any evidence for what you BELIEVE.

What you believe was known fiction since at least the 2nd century.

Please, tell us how you believe Satan started out.

Jesus and Satan were together at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in the time of Pilate in the NT.

If your Jesus was NOT with Satan during during the Temptation then your Jesus is MODERN Fiction.

 

[ryu238]

NOPE.

Where did Mark obtain the name, because Mark wrote first, as we know from reading Justin Martyr, who cites, without reference, several passages that correspond most closely to Matthew, the writer who in turn, used Mark as a source.

"Paul" doesn't appear on the scene until the late second century, when his epistles are referenced by the Bishop of Lugdunum, who conveniently had traveled to Rome, on that very day, when the Roman army captured Irenaeus' predecessor, Pothinus, and executed him, for having committed the crime of practicing Christianity. Was Irenaeus not guilty of the same practices as Pothinus?

We forget that the gospels authors are unknown as well. And show a distinct lack of knowledge that should be attributed to them. Such as the currency used at the time. Or the geography, or the bible.

 

[Craig B]

If the NT Paul is based on a real person, that person may not have been a 1st century preacher. Paul may not have been preaching about Jesus Christ. He may have been preaching about another god, and his epistles later redacted to align with the Jesus narrative. Or the epistles may have been written about him; or been written about a couple of preachers, and conflated or confabulated into one character.

Indeed, you can state absolutely anything you like, and say it may have happened, or not.