The Jesus myth Part I

[dastardly stem]

drumdude had said:

I think you can reasonably conclude there was a preacher named Jesus. Otherwise you have to assume the more improbable hypothesis that the Jesus character came out of complete imagination.

I don't know about complete imagination, because our imaginations are tied to that which we could possible know, that which we've been fed to think already. So we have to take from that which came previously to some extent. But on this point, if I read his point correctly, I'd say it's the exact opposite. Considering the story of Jesus its far more likely, after an evaluation, to say Jesus was a made up, thus mythical, haracter rather than a historical person.

The below is mostly taken from On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 5, pgs 229-234 with of my own comments (Carrier's words in the quote boxes):

From ancient stories there is a trend developed for defining a 'divine king' hero. Carrier calls this the Rank-Raglan hero-type. It is defined by these elements:

1. The hero's mother is a virgin.
2. His father is a king or the heir of a king.
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual.
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god.
5. An attempt is made to kill him when he is a baby.
6. To escape which he is spirited away from those trying Old Testament kill him.
7. He is reared in a foreign country by one or more foster parents.
8. We are told nothing of his childhood.
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom.
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king.
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e., without wars or national catastrophe)
12. He prescribes laws.
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects.
14. He is driven from the throne or city.
15. He meets with a mysterious death.
16. He dies atop a hill or high place.
17. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
18. His body turns up missing.
19. Yet he still has one or more holy sepulchres (in fact or fiction)
20. Before taking a throne or a wife, he battles and defeats a great adversary (such as a king, giant, dragon, or wild beast)
21. His parents are related to each other.
22. He marries a queen or princess related to his predecessor.

These are the top 15 on the list (scores in parentheses):

1. Oedipus (21)
2. Moses (20)
3. Jesus (20)
4. Theseus (19)
5. Dionysus (19)
6. Romulus (18)
7. Perseus (17)
8. Hercules (17)
9. Zeus (15)
10. Bellerophon (14)
11. Jason (14)
12. Osiris (14)
13. Pelops (13)
14. Asclepius (12)
15. Joseph [i,e., the son of Jacob](12)

No known historical persons are on the list. Only mythical people ever got fitted to this hero-type. Yet every single one of them was regarded as a historical person and placed in history in narratives written about them.

To further note, it may be possible to score Jesus a 22 and thus make him the highest scoring figure on the list. But the last two elements would be too unknown, not mentioned in the gospels (even if later or previously believed). Thus, it could be, and likely is, Jesus was created to fit the motif of divine kings. It is, but one piece of data and details how it is far more likely that Jesus was a mythical person rather than a historical one.

Thanks, plenty more to get to...all comments are appreciated.

[dastardly stem]

I'd like to point out that in his peer-reviewed work, Carrier assigns a 1/3 chance that Jesus was a historical figure (with 700+ pages detailing why). He doesn't say it's an open-and-shut case of ahistoricity.

That would be the extreme upper bound of his evaluation. That is given all assumptions favoring historicity, the math still works out as only a 1 in 3 chance of Jesus having lived.

But you are right, we can't possibly consider this an open and shut case. Carrier and many many others have spent a good deal of time and energy addressing the issue. We can't reach levels of certainty, even if at times we talk that way. We get differing levels of probability.

[huckelberry]

Thanks for expanding on your position, PG. You make an interesting point about the expectation that there be accounts of the life of Jesus from those who knew him. .......

This is why it would be completely kooky to suggest that Plato and Xenophon made Socrates up. This is why it is ridiculous to suggest that Jesus is as well attested as Socrates. It is not the number of texts that matters. It is the quality of the witness that matters, and those who are known to have known the people and events as eyewitnesses to the times are exponentially more valuable than later sources with no apparent direct connection to the people and events.

It is unfortunate that those who knew Jesus didn’t write about him, and those who wrote about him didn’t know him.

kishkumen , you make your point well. Your summary has a punch. It points to the observation that we have very little in the way of a life of Jesus. It is plausible that his life was very ordinary until the last few years. We do not really have any report of that however.

I think Physics Guy does have a point however. The concern about Jesus is flowing through groups which are trying to maintain continuity. That group continuity and their concern becomes quite clear by the end of the first century. People are concerned to maintain the best primary information. That fits with Luke's introductory comment. He is using what he understands to be the best primary information. I realize that leaves the first couple decades after Jesus's death for story expansions.

[drumdude]

No known historical persons are on the list.

Would you agree that elements from the list of attributes would not have been put on the character Jesus all at once? That they would have been slowly added on to the original character, even if he was real or imaginary?

All of these ancient myths are evolving memes in society, they aren't singular works of fiction like for example "Harry Potter" where the entire story was laid out and released at once.

[Kishkumen]

I think Physics Guy does have a point however. The concern about Jesus is flowing through groups which are trying to maintain continuity. That group continuity and their concern becomes quite clear by the end of the first century. People are concerned to maintain the best primary information. That fits with Luke's introductory comment. He is using what he understands to be the best primary information. I realize that leaves the first couple decades after Jesus's death for story expansions.

Yes, concern about continuity is not the same as evidence of continuity. A person can know that they need continuity and do their best to provide it when they are at the same time aware that this is a weak point in their story. Yes, the author of Luke, above all, seems to be the kind of person with the kind of education to realize what was expected, and so that is why the author of Luke stresses those things. But, again, if there were much better sources to bring to the table, he would not rely on Mark to the extent that he did. It is pretty obvious that Mark is the earliest gospel, and that it does not provide the kind of information that would satisfy skeptics as they approached the Jesus Movement as it had come to be with the information that was available.

I say this as someone who thinks that Jesus was a real person. The problem is not, in my mind, whether he is a real person or not, but one of how confident we can be that much of the anecdotal material we have reflects events on the ground accurately. I can't help but think that between a lack of written sources and the passage of time, recollections of Jesus' life would easily drift away from the facts under the influence of theology, literary tradition, and myth. Jesus then becomes a person whose life had to have been X, whether is was in fact or not. The gospels are really primarily about believers interpreting the life of Jesus to find meaning, not about transmitting history. Look at the nativity stuff. Pure mythology.

[Jersey Girl]

It is unfortunate that those who knew Jesus didn’t write about him, and those who wrote about him didn’t know him.

Would the people who allegedly knew Jesus have been literate?

[dastardly stem]

No known historical persons are on the list.

Would you agree that elements from the list of attributes would not have been put on the character Jesus all at once? That they would have been slowly added on to the original character, even if he was real or imaginary?

All of these ancient myths are evolving memes in society, they aren't singular works of fiction like for example "Harry Potter" where the entire story was laid out and released at once.

I agree. They grow and develop. Its a primary criticism of the Gospels. Marks Jesus is a far cry from John's, with seemingly each rendition after mark developing further heroic and divine qualities.

[Kishkumen]

The below is mostly taken from On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 5, pgs 229-234 with of my own comments (Carrier's words in the quote boxes):

From ancient stories there is a trend developed for defining a 'divine king' hero. Carrier calls this the Rank-Raglan hero-type. It is defined by these elements:

1. The hero's mother is a virgin.
2. His father is a king or the heir of a king.
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual.
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god.
5. An attempt is made to kill him when he is a baby.
6. To escape which he is spirited away from those trying Old Testament kill him.
7. He is reared in a foreign country by one or more foster parents.
8. We are told nothing of his childhood.
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom.
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king.
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e., without wars or national catastrophe)
12. He prescribes laws.
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects.
14. He is driven from the throne or city.
15. He meets with a mysterious death.
16. He dies atop a hill or high place.
17. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
18. His body turns up missing.
19. Yet he still has one or more holy sepulchres (in fact or fiction)
20. Before taking a throne or a wife, he battles and defeats a great adversary (such as a king, giant, dragon, or wild beast)
21. His parents are related to each other.
22. He marries a queen or princess related to his predecessor.

These are the top 15 on the list (scores in parentheses):

1. Oedipus (21)
2. Moses (20)
3. Jesus (20)
4. Theseus (19)
5. Dionysus (19)
6. Romulus (18)
7. Perseus (17)
8. Hercules (17)
9. Zeus (15)
10. Bellerophon (14)
11. Jason (14)
12. Osiris (14)
13. Pelops (13)
14. Asclepius (12)
15. Joseph [i,e., the son of Jacob](12)

No known historical persons are on the list. Only mythical people ever got fitted to this hero-type. Yet every single one of them was regarded as a historical person and placed in history in narratives written about them.

To further note, it may be possible to score Jesus a 22 and thus make him the highest scoring figure on the list. But the last two elements would be too unknown, not mentioned in the gospels (even if later or previously believed). Thus, it could be, and likely is, Jesus was created to fit the motif of divine kings. It is, but one piece of data and details how it is far more likely that Jesus was a mythical person rather than a historical one.

Thanks, plenty more to get to...all comments are appreciated.

These lists are really poor tools to gauge historicity. Let me modify it to make a point:

1. The hero's mother is a virgin.

2. His father is a king or the heir of a king: Why is this even on the list? Anyone who was the son of a king or the heir of a king is less likely to be real?

3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual: Alexander the Great and Augustus are both historical figures about whom this was reputedly the case but certainly not actually the case.


4. He is reputed to be the son of a god: Again, Alexander the Great and Augustus both fit the bill here. Augustus two ways: Julius Caesar became a god and Augustus was his adoptive father, and Augustus was also reputed to be the son of Apollo.


5. An attempt is made to kill him when he is a baby: There was a story about Nero that suggested the same.

6. To escape which he is spirited away from those trying Old Testament kill him: Why this particular version? In Hercules' case, and Nero's, the hero supposedly handled the snakes himself.

7. He is reared in a foreign country by one or more foster parents: The children of gods are, as a result of the claim of divine parentage, raised away from their divine parents.

8. We are told nothing of his childhood: Because childhood was not the focus of a lot of interest in antiquity. Most ancient biographies spend very little time on the childhood of the biographical subject.

9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom: Octavian is in Apollonia, Greece, when Caesar is assassinated, and he returns to Italy and Rome when he discovers he is Caesar's heir and adopted son.

10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king: This is another "so what?" element. Most kings in dynasties are believed to be the children of their fathers and so they enter on their kingdom with a claim of legitimate inheritance of the throne.

11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e., without wars or national catastrophe): Propaganda ordinarily works that way. You don't highlight the failures and troubles but the benefits of the legitimate monarch's rule.

12. He prescribes laws: This is a standard element of ancient kingship. The king shows his care for his people by prescribing and upholding the law.

13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects: Crap happens. See Nero.

14. He is driven from the throne or city: See Nero again.

15. He meets with a mysterious death: See Nero.

16. He dies atop a hill or high place: Maybe, maybe not. Dionysus was torn apart by the Titans in a cave.

17. His children, if any, do not succeed him: Maybe, maybe not. If it is the end of the dynasty, then not.

18. His body turns up missing: There were big questions about whether Nero died and who saw or did not see his body.

19. Yet he still has one or more holy sepulchres (in fact or fiction): Augustus and Hadrian had beautiful mausoleums. Having a big mausoleum or tumulus was part of being an important person. It was assumed that you should be able to identify the burial place of an important person.

20. Before taking a throne or a wife, he battles and defeats a great adversary (such as a king, giant, dragon, or wild beast): Octavian defeats Antony and Cleopatra in a civil war before he becomes Augustus, the first emperor of Rome.

21. His parents are related to each other: See inbreeding and the desire to insist upon legitimacy by combining royal lineages.

22. He marries a queen or princess related to his predecessor: Again, this is a feature of dynastic politics. Brigham Young married former plural wives of Joseph Smith.

I think the long and short of the issue is this: ancient monarchs and other important people were expected to have (and not a few of them did have) a certain kind of life story, and even when they did not have the life itself, the story was written to make them meet expectations. I find Carrier to be a really baffling character. He has a PhD in ancient history, but you wouldn't know it based on his interpretive frameworks. His stuff on the ancient material itself looks more like it was written Joseph Campbell's dumb cousin than William Harris or Walter Scheidel.

[Kishkumen]

Would the people who allegedly knew Jesus have been literate?

Exactly. It's not that Jesus did not live. The problem is that his was not a literate movement.

[Jersey Girl]

Would the people who allegedly knew Jesus have been literate?

Exactly. It's not that Jesus did not live. The problem is that his was not a literate movement.

Thank you. I've been reading this thread intermittently. I never pass up a Jesus related thread where you or Aristotle are on board. I didn't see that the issue had been raised. It seems to me that the accounts of Jesus were transmitted the way they were from the beginning of his ministry, via orality. Continued to be transmitted in much the same way until literate authors wrote them down. I do think there was room for myth making over time, but I just did want to point out that those who knew Jesus weren't literate and to our knowledge, neither was Jesus himself. So, we have what we have and sometimes our expectations are based on false assumptions.