Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 7:21 pm
Stem, how do the parallels you cite support the conclusion that the mythical divine Christ wholly invented as opposed to being a mythologized real person?
It's a good question but I find it a little bit odd considering all that we have. In this thread I've limited Jesus' history stories to Paul and Mark (those that come after Mrak are quite positively dependent sources). So we have a Jesus in Paul wherein Paul only very rarely and ambiguously gives hints that maybe Jesus lived before him. But I'd question each of those rare mentions, wondering if any of them are explicit enough to overcome the mythicist hypothesis, or to really support the notion of historicity. But Mark's story clearly and without equivocation claims Jesus lived. That's where we read of the claim. If we read with some degree of skepticism as we should, as I see it, then how do we support Mark's claim? If Mark's own claim pretends to render many themes and stories from all previous myths well known amongst his Roman/Greek upbringing, then how do we even take seriously that his story is history? Or that his characters were real people? Did he mean it as such? Interestingly there is a mystery element added to Mark. he mentions a couple of times that the story he's writing, and the gospel he's pushing was not supposed to be told to anyone (Mark 9:9, Mark 7:36, Mark 1:44-45 5:42-43, Mark 16:8). Surely the mystery element all by itself doesn't do justice to the claim that there was no Jesus, but its not like it's against such a notion. Additionally, it's apparent to some, and I find the arguments pretty persuasive that Mark had reliance on at least some portion of Paul's letters. Additionally as previous threads and discussions have demonstrated, it is quite likely that the anonymous author of Mark had a community among other greek literal elites and was writing creatively to impress his community. That'd be how he would have been able to get his writings circulated to any extent. He'd have to impress his immediate audience--his community. There's little reason to think he wrote his account on the back of oral stories passed around to his ears. That's guesswork. It could have happened. It just seems less likely given things like Mark's stories all have familiarity in content and wording as many greek and Roman myths that were commonly held. The stories continue to be reminiscent of previous stories (MacDonald has, of course, far more in his works then the few I mentioned here), and there's nothing to suggest the stories found in Mark are history.
On the whole the idea that Mark rendered previous hero and god myths in order to bolster his own character, doesn't necessarily suggest Jesus never lived. It simply becomes more likely considering all the other elements that we ought to consider.
Why do you expect that there would not be parallels to other mythical figures if the myth of the divine Christ were based on a real guy named Jesus?
It may or may not be expected. Alexander was mythologized, and given divine status in such mythologies. There are similiarities, i know. But there is also one ton of evidence demonstrating Alexander actually lived, which is clearly not the case for Jesus. On Jesus' case it seems more reasonable to give an "I don't know" and leaving at some level of probability then to say "he must have lived".
Let us consider this scenario. In 2,000 years there happens to be, we'll say, a Spiderman religion dominant among many in the world. All of the comics and stories we have are erased. But in history, all we have from the year 2012 is a writing, we'll say, from a man in China (Named Nthan) who wrote letters in Chinese to some unknown others in various places around the world--a letter to Zimbabwean believers, some in Kazakhstan, Australia etc. Nathan's letters do not explicitly say Spiderman, who is Peter Parker, lived. They give ambiguous hints he may have. But another, some decades after Nathan, wrote what many consider a history of Peter Parker who is the Spiderman. Peter had parents, and an aunt (?) who raised him. He lived in NYC and saved people from enemies. He magically did many things. And we'll say in some measure of analogy, the story included many elements that were comparable to, derived from, other Chinese myths. Same language was used to detail stories of his life that would be considered popular among Chinese people today. I won't pretend to get too detailed there to drive the point home, because I'm sure we all get the picture. But in this scenario it may be likely most believers over the next 2,000 years think there really was, at bottom, a Peter Parker who started the religion.
Are we saying now that it would be reasonable for believers in spiderman to think Peter Parker was a real living person in 2,000 years from now? I would say, no. They'd need something way better than what they have. Sure, Peter Parker could have been someone. The name is quite common--the last and the first. No doubt many people who have lived in NYC had the name, over, say, the past 100 years. The story could be based on any one of the Peter Parkers. But sadly, those 2,000 years from now have nothing to detail any particular Peter Parker who may have started the religion.
This seems basically parallel to what we have for Jesus. If Jesus was some run-of-mill apocalyptic preacher who no one noticed because there were others, but somehow managed to start a religion, make enough noise to get himself killed by authorities...so be it. But we have no evidence for any of that. Just as Spiderman believers 2,000 years from now have no evidence for a real Peter Parker who started the religion they presumably would hold so dear.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
