The Jesus myth Part I

[dastardly stem]

What are the "public gospels" of Osiris?

I do believe he's suggesting any stories written about Osiris as if he had a life on earth are like gospels. I don''t think he has anything specific in mind on this point.

One of the larger issues I have with Carrier is what I perceive to be his lack of understanding of literary genre. One cannot treat epistles like gospels, histories, or biographies, but he tends to lump them together, as do his acolytes and fans. There is a reason that Paul does not deal with biographical details regarding Jesus' life: he is not writing biographies.

I don't know that this is true. It might be. He seems to get that the Epistles aren't biographies. But that does not take away the fact that Paul doesn't teach Jesus' teachings. And yet, Paul is said to be one who is teaching Jesus' teachings. Paul only knows the gospel through revelation, not through hearing it from Cephas or anyone else. By the time he meets Cephas, he's already preaching, is already an apostle, apparently. And, if Paul thought there was a Jesus who had lived on earth, you'd think he'd have said so somewhere in his letters. I grant that's not a solid case on its own, but I'd say it fits more with mythicism than historicism. I still don't think we can talk certainties here.

Go read the letters of Cicero and Pliny the Younger. Get a better sense of what the epistolary genre is and how Paul fits into it. What is Paul trying to do in his epistles? Then we can talk about whether biographical details are really missing for other than generic reasons.

And maybe on that you and Carrier could have a good conversation. In the mean time, I'm limited and I'll leave it there. I hardly means that we can't be reasonable though.

[dastardly stem]

It seems like a pretty good example of the difficulties in drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence.

Yes, and sure. That is a big part of the issue here. If we lack not only biographical details of Jesus' life from Paul and we have zero in the way of teachings from Jesus from Paul and we have nothing from Paul indicating he knew or talked to others who knew Jesus, then we have a weak case to make the positive claim that Jesus lived.

It sounds like that best case historicists have is to poke holes in the mythicist position. But to me, that tends more towards inconclusivity rather than establishing a real Jesus having lived, as a preacher, gaining a following and upsetting authorities to the point of getting himself killed.

[Physics Guy]

In your own quotation Carrier seems to say explicitly that he is reading "brothers of the Lord" to mean "all other Christians".

... the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas ... (1 Cor. 9.1-6).

Paul is talking about all other Christians, who were all ‘brothers of the Lord’ ... . Since all baptized Christians were the family of the Lord.

I repeat that this is a far-fetched reading of a straightforward text.

The argument from Paul's silence about Jesus's family—if you don't count this passage here—is strange. How many of Abraham Lincoln's political allies, either in his lifetime or after, went out of their way to discuss Lincoln's parents? Heck, list your favourite handful of historical figures, recent or not, and see how much you can recall anyone ever saying about their families.

Why would we expect Paul to discuss Jesus's family at any length? Not having people talk a lot about your family isn't a sign that you're a myth. It's a sign that you did more important things than get born and grow up.

[Kishkumen]

I do believe he's suggesting any stories written about Osiris as if he had a life on earth are like gospels. I don''t think he has anything specific in mind on this point.

There are no public gospels of Osiris. Period. This is a huge red flag. And it is not the only one.

You can't just use the term gospels in any way you like. The term is a specific generic term and it has its own history of scholarly discussion.

I don't know that this is true. It might be.

Go find out, if you are interested in doing this for more than idle entertainment. You don't believe me, it seems, and yet I have taught ancient epistles. You have not. Carrier has not.

He seems to get that the Epistles aren't biographies.

You're not sure?

But that does not take away the fact that Paul doesn't teach Jesus' teachings.

So what?

And yet, Paul is said to be one who is teaching Jesus' teachings. Paul only knows the gospel through revelation, not through hearing it from Cephas or anyone else. By the time he meets Cephas, he's already preaching, is already an apostle, apparently. And, if Paul thought there was a Jesus who had lived on earth, you'd think he'd have said so somewhere in his letters. I grant that's not a solid case on its own, but I'd say it fits more with mythicism than historicism. I still don't think we can talk certainties here.

You are conflating different issues here. Paul does not have to teach Jesus' teachings, because he is teaching his own doctrine about Jesus as a theological figure. It does not matter that he never met Jesus. It does not matter that he styles himself an apostle before he meets Cephas. And he does refer to the life of Jesus in his letters no matter how many times you deny that he has. You just don't accept the evidence as evidence, and that is your methodological error, not a historical Jesus issue.

And maybe on that you and Carrier could have a good conversation. In the mean time, I'm limited and I'll leave it there. I hardly means that we can't be reasonable though.

Well, when you are serious about figuring these things out for yourself, and not just parroting Carrier's incompetent take on things, let me know.

[dastardly stem]

Well, when you are serious about figuring these things out for yourself, and not just parroting Carrier's incompetent take on things, let me know.

Thanks Kish. I have conceded all along that I am not knowledgeable enough to rebut Carrier. And you can say you're right and he's wrong all day long, but that can't possibly convince me. I'm pointing out what seems reasonable to me and if its wrong its wrong. I'm happy to see it as wrong if it can be shown to be such. But, sorry, I'm just not willing, at this point, to take your authoritative statements as gospel truth, as they say. I like the challenge and investigation and I'm just getting started, it feels like to me. If this is too low on your totem pole, great. I'm happy to hear it.

All my best to you.

[dastardly stem]

In your own quotation Carrier seems to say explicitly that he is reading "brothers of the Lord" to mean "all other Christians".

... the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas ... (1 Cor. 9.1-6).

I repeat that this is a far-fetched reading of a straightforward text.

The argument from Paul's silence about Jesus's family—if you don't count this passage here—is strange. How many of Abraham Lincoln's political allies, either in his lifetime or after, went out of their way to discuss Lincoln's parents? Heck, list your favourite handful of historical figures, recent or not, and see how much you can recall anyone ever saying about their families.

Why would we expect Paul to discuss Jesus's family at any length? Not having people talk a lot about your family isn't a sign that you're a myth. It's a sign that you did more important things than get born and grow up.

Thanks PG. I disagree. I don't see it a straightforward reading in suggesting Jesus had actual biological brothers. After all all believers were brothers of Jesus, in a sense. Paul is suggesting, as I see it, that traveling ministers, includind Cephas, the apostles (whom Cephas would be 1), and any ministering brother, should be fed and given shelter. It seems reasonable. But, I grant, it can also be seen as reasonable on historicism. But again, there is plenty more data to consider.

[Res Ipsa]

It seems like a pretty good example of the difficulties in drawing conclusions from an absence of evidence.

Yes, and sure. That is a big part of the issue here. If we lack not only biographical details of Jesus' life from Paul and we have zero in the way of teachings from Jesus from Paul and we have nothing from Paul indicating he knew or talked to others who knew Jesus, then we have a weak case to make the positive claim that Jesus lived.

It sounds like that best case historicists have is to poke holes in the mythicist position. But to me, that tends more towards inconclusivity rather than establishing a real Jesus having lived, as a preacher, gaining a following and upsetting authorities to the point of getting himself killed.

That sounds like using the mythicist position as a default. It has the same burden of proof as the historicist position.

[huckelberry]

I think that makes sense. Paul's letters address established congregations of Christians on specific issues. To assume that they would have included biographical information about Jesus is a pretty big stretch.

Indeed. Usually when biographical details are mentioned in letters, they deal with the facts of lives of living people connected personally to the letter writers. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally this is the case for very good reasons. The epistle is in some ways an ephemeral genre. It is tied very much to the present circumstances of the occasion when it was written.

Paul, it seems to me, is concerned with Christian doctrine and the communities he is writing, not in establishing the events of Jesus' life. He assumes that his readers know about Jesus. He only touches on Jesus in the ways that are theologically and doctrinally salient to these communities.

kishkumen , your comment is well focused enough that I hope adding something will not be a distraction.

If one looks and first Corinthians there are considerations about concerns that Jesus did not address , would not have come up in his circumstances.Meat sacrificed to idols is a concern for Christians living in Corinth not jews in Jerusalem. This fits the way Kishkumen shows letters are shaped. Even so despite empty claims that Paul was unaware of Jesus teachings the letter contains two direct comments about what Jesus taught. 7:8 "to the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from the husband 7: 25 "Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord but give my own opinion.

For my own reading I find Pauls understanding of moral principals to be a carefully considered understanding of the implications of Jesus statements. Because of this I find it very difficult not to see all of Paul as a witness to the reality of that apocalyptic preacher would ran afoul of the authorities. This of course is not a provable observation but one I find helps make sense of both Paul and Jesus. I also find it strange to think a collection of sayings could be created which would imply what Paul thought in a later circumstance while carefully remaining in a fictional circumstance c 32 ad.(or maybe somebody named.... taught these things prior to Paul and started the original Christian movement)

[Analytics]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and what's become clear to me is that the question "Did Jesus exist historically?" is ill-defined. As Stem has said, the answer is yes, there were lots of guys named Jesus.

Instead, I propose the following two questions:

1- Who was Paul referring to when he talked about Jesus the Christ? Was he imagining something closer to the mystic Christ described in Ascent of Isaiah? Or was he referring specifically to a resurrected preacher from Nazareth?

2- What is the original inspiration for the Gospel of Mark? Was it a real person? Or is it fiction that places the mystic Jesus in a historical setting?

Let's assume Jesus was real and is the basis of both the gospel of Mark and Paul's religion. Chronologically, the religion evolved something like this:

A.D. 30: There really is a historical preacher from Nazareth named Jesus who was crucified around the year A.D. 30.

A.D. 50: Paul has a vision of Jesus and preaches what he preached. It has almost nothing to do with the historical Jesus, whom he never met in real life. Yet he instantly becomes the most important proponent of this new religion. The religion is all about having faith in Jesus to be saved. Paul writes letters to all of the various churches, and they believe and accept his teachings. He is one of their leaders.

A.D. 70: Mark gets around to writing the story of the life of Jesus. Mark seems totally unaware that Jesus is a God and that people need to have faith in him to be saved. Instead he sees Jesus as a mortal preacher who preached love, forgiveness, and the end of the world.

A.D. 80: Matthew and Luke write their gospels, and add some sayings of Jesus, but basically corroborate Mark's account. Jesus was a preacher who was crucified by Romans, not a God who was crucified to save people with faith from hell.

A.D. 90: John writes his gospel and Jesus of Nazareth really is a God.

That whole thing gives me whiplash. Could a single religion really evolve like that?

What is incredibly clear to me is that Mark's religion and Paul's religion were different. Mark was following the teachings of a preacher from Nazareth. Paul was following his own revelations, that were congruent with the revelations of other people in his community. Mark and Paul both had religious communities, but they were different religious communities.

Maybe their communities both started with the same Jesus. Or maybe they started with different Jesuses. Mark's Jesus was probably a historical figure. Paul's could have been, but that seems less certain. In any case, they were different religions that only later merged.

I haven't heard anybody suggest this line of thinking, but that is how I see it at the moment.

Thoughts?

[dastardly stem]

Yes, and sure. That is a big part of the issue here. If we lack not only biographical details of Jesus' life from Paul and we have zero in the way of teachings from Jesus from Paul and we have nothing from Paul indicating he knew or talked to others who knew Jesus, then we have a weak case to make the positive claim that Jesus lived.

It sounds like that best case historicists have is to poke holes in the mythicist position. But to me, that tends more towards inconclusivity rather than establishing a real Jesus having lived, as a preacher, gaining a following and upsetting authorities to the point of getting himself killed.

That sounds like using the mythicist position as a default. It has the same burden of proof as the historicist position.

That's what I'm saying and why I started with "Yes and sure". The default can't be historicist just like it can't be mythicist.

Ah well.