The religious founder fallacy

[advancedatheist]

I've read a lot into the history of religions, and I frequently come across the claim that Jesus had to exist historically because christianity couldn't have gotten started without a flesh-and-blood founder. While many more recent religions do have identifiable founders, like Mormonism' Joseph Smith, for example, we know of plenty of ancient religions lacking claimed historical originators. Which historical figure founded Hinduism, for example, or the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian religions? If these religions arose through obscure historical processes and then maybe backfilled their origins with legendary revelators, then why couldn't the Jesus story have originated in a similar fashion?

 

[Robin]

I've read a lot into the history of religions, and I frequently come across the claim that Jesus had to exist historically because christianity couldn't have gotten started without a flesh-and-blood founder. While many more recent religions do have identifiable founders, like Mormonism' Joseph Smith, for example, we know of plenty of ancient religions lacking claimed historical originators. Which historical figure founded Hinduism, for example, or the ancient Egyptian, Greek and Mesopotamian religions? If these religions arose through obscure historical processes and then maybe backfilled their origins with legendary revelators, then why couldn't the Jesus story have originated in a similar fashion?

But is there an example of a religion that claims an identifiable founder, where that founder is known to be made up?

It would be kind of like someone coming up with the idea of Mormonism and then inventing the figure of Joseph Smith as a founder. Possible, but it does not seem the likliest explanation.

 

[Kopji]

Lao Tzu is often thought to not be a real person. Not sure how you would prove it though.

A question might be if Jesus were someone who actually lived, but became larger than life later. Maybe like Davey Crockett or Johnny Appleseed.

Q: Would Jesus recognize himself as the founder of Christianity if he were alive today?

Something to consider is that much of the NT relies on Paul's testimony and influence. Paul never met Jesus, except by revelation. So a lot of it is by belief and trust in what Paul experienced, not any historical record.

 

[Zep]

And Paul was a mysoginist ranting nutter who roamed the countryside "having visions" and preaching end-of-the-world lunacy. These days, he would be viewed with the same sideways looks as we would the street trolls who rant on soapboxes in the park. Or Scientologists. Or Fred Phelps. Such is the origin of Christianity as presented in the New Testament.

 

[Iacchus]

Oops! Sorry ...

 

[Iacchus]

Or, perhaps it's just best expressed in human terms, since we do after all become the children of God and, are received into heaven. If it was meant for us to understand who God is and, to have some sort of relationship with Him, then it's probably best that He presents Himself in a form we can recognize ... regardless of whether we were truly created in His image or not (as the Bible claims).

 

[jjramsey]

A question might be if Jesus were someone who actually lived, but became larger than life later. Maybe like Davey Crockett or Johnny Appleseed.

I'd say that most historians answer that question in the affirmative. The evidence fits most cleanly with that conclusion.

Q: Would Jesus recognize himself as the founder of Christianity if he were alive today?

I'd say he'd recognize himself, if only because his name is plastered all over Christian stuff. Whether he agreed with what was founded in his name is a whole other story.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Re: Re: The religious founder fallacy

But is there an example of a religion that claims an identifiable founder, where that founder is known to be made up?

It would be kind of like someone coming up with the idea of Mormonism and then inventing the figure of Joseph Smith as a founder. Possible, but it does not seem the likliest explanation.

More likely, in a time where the jewish people needed a mesiah, in a time neck deep in prophecy, where the local mythology was colored with virgin births, people roaming the countryside healing people, crusifictions to hell and resurections to heaven, we have a rumor started that "yeah, my brother's roommate's cousin saw the messiah!" Funny enough, the tales of his exploits seem to reflect exactly the jewish prophecy and the area's various pagan mythologies. The rumors grow and spread, Paul starts to write stuff down about seeing Jesus in visions. About 150 years after the rumors start, someone transcribes them. 3 other people copy off of the original and add their own flurishes, and here we are.

It's not that someone invented a religion and made up a man as it's founder. It's that someone made up a man, and a religion grew out of it.

 

[advancedatheist]

Re: Re: The religious founder fallacy

But is there an example of a religion that claims an identifiable founder, where that founder is known to be made up?

The Catholic Church now acknowledges that many of the "saints" it promoted belief in a few centuries back probably didn't exist historically. If elaborate beliefs could arise around nonexistent "saints," then why not Jesus?

 

[KelvinG]

Re: Re: Re: The religious founder fallacy

The Catholic Church now acknowledges that many of the "saints" it promoted belief in a few centuries back probably didn't exist historically. If elaborate beliefs could arise around nonexistent "saints," then why not Jesus?

Not only couldy they arise, I would fully expect them too. I can't imagine the dudes who wrote about Jesus in the bible said to themselves "Alright, I'm going to stick only to the facts. This must be as historically accurate as possible."
It's mythology. It's narrative storytelling.
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, but I'm highly, highly skeptical that he existed in the exact form as the bible portrays.

 

[jjramsey]

Re: Re: Re: The religious founder fallacy

The Catholic Church now acknowledges that many of the "saints" it promoted belief in a few centuries back probably didn't exist historically. If elaborate beliefs could arise around nonexistent "saints," then why not Jesus?

It really comes down to the individual circumstances. I'd say that the evidence is far more consistent with a historical Jesus of Nazareth than without. There are at least a few places that look like covers for failure, for example, Jesus not doing miracles in Nazareth because they lacked faith, and him refusing to do miracles in front of authorities. The contradictory ways that Matthew and Luke have Jesus be born in Bethlehem while growing up in Nazareth suggests that they were trying to work around that he was really born in Nazareth. We have casual references to James being the brother of Jesus, in the Gospels, in the letter to the Galatians, and in Josephus. (Earl Doherty tries to work around this by ignoring that the grammar Paul uses in referring to James as "brother of the Lord" is different than the grammar Paul uses to refer to brothers in Christ (source).)