The Jesus myth Part I

[Kishkumen]

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.

Yes! As far as we know--and this seems consistent with the information we have--Jesus' movement was predominantly if not completely an oral culture as regards the life of Jesus himself. This is because many of his followers were not literate, and the literary culture of his world was focused on already existing sacred books like the Torah and commentary on those existing works. We don't have any internal documentation of any other group of its kind--such as the ones Josephus reported. The Essenes were a much different kind of movement.

[dastardly stem]

These lists are really poor tools to gauge historicity.

So to be clear this list appears as part of his consideration to help find a prior probability.

Let me modify it to make a point:

While I appreciate the comments I'm lost on the point. Of course any points on the list could apply to many people, historical figures and the like. Alexander and Augustus also got ranked on the list, it just so happens that they fall below the over 50% of the items on the list. They're below the top 15. And yes agreed with this point:

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.

That is a big part of his point here. The times when stories embellish the life of a historic person are often explained just as you describe. No historic people, heros who often get exaggerated do not get so embellished that they rank high enough of the list to register. Surely no on can conclude that means each character in the top 15 couldn't be considered historical vs mythical. It just so happens the data suggests they are mythical already and yet they commonly have elements found in the list.

The rank-raglan was his name given but it is not his list. You likely know this but clarifying for any interested reader. Find the list in: Alan Segal (ed.), In Quest of the Hero (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990).

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.
[/quote]

[Jersey Girl]

Hey Stem,

I saw your various comments that I believe came from Carrier (?) regarding the historicity of other figures v. Jesus. There are many such resources online that list the extant copies of written works referring related to various historical figures online. Some of them calculate how many such documents there are I used to use those years ago when the myth vs. historical topic was raised. Not on this board, though.

But yes, there's quite a lot of resources online with which to compare claims made by various author you are reading. You'll have to root through them to sort out which are reputable and which are not.

[Bret Ripley]

These lists are really poor tools to gauge historicity ...

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.

Just musing, here: I've not read any Carrier, but do I understand correctly that the argument is along the lines of "the more mythological elements attributed to a person, the less likely they are to have been historical"? If I'm wrong about that, I understand the following question is based on a strawman: if we accept Marcan priority and acknowledge that Mark omits several of the mythical elements present in subsequent accounts, aren't we left with the absurd conclusion that Jesus was more likely to be historical in c. 70ce than he was in (say) 120ce?

It seems to me that if I were to write a story about Richard Carrier raising the dead, that may tell you something about me but nothing at all about whether there is a historical Richard Carrier.

[Jersey Girl]

Just musing, here: I've not read any Carrier, but do I understand correctly that the argument is along the lines of "the more mythological elements attributed to a person, the less likely they are to have been historical"?

I think time is a consideration with regard to historicity as well. The further out the recorded stories, the more time people have to embellish and embed details that weren't there to begin with. It's akin to a long running game of telephone where the end messaging was nothing like the original. Also in the case of Jesus, I think it's fair to say that myth could have been added in based on the mythology of other ancient religions. I know many or most believers will take offense to that, but I think there's room for it when one applies critical thinking.

I'll be interested to see what Kish has to say about that.

I think you can see that in current times how the reputations of historical figures are built over time to the point where they are almost considered super heroes.

Probably a bad analogy but you know what I'm trying to say.

[Kishkumen]

While I appreciate the comments I'm lost on the point. Of course any points on the list could apply to many people, historical figures and the like. Alexander and Augustus also got ranked on the list, it just so happens that they fall below the over 50% of the items on the list.

If a number of the criteria count as part of mundane human lives, then how are they probative of a figure's non-historicity? As I noted a number of times, a handful of these items are just the stock material of dynastic social patterns. Being the son of a king is not something that makes a person fictional. Marrying a relative is not something that makes a person fictional. So, we either have a problem of a poor choice/construction of heuristic tools or a problem in their application.

That is a big part of his point here. The times when stories embellish the life of a historic person are often explained just as you describe. No historic people, heros who often get exaggerated do not get so embellished that they rank high enough of the list to register. Surely no on can conclude that means each character in the top 15 couldn't be considered historical vs mythical. It just so happens the data suggests they are mythical already and yet they commonly have elements found in the list.

Well, yes, but a number of the items are just mundane facts. Adding them to a person's life did not turn them into unreal people. Being recognized as a god could just be a formal state of affairs. You were a good emperor, and the senate voted to consecrate you a god of the state. Mundane fact. To say that Jesus participates in this narrative does not make him less real or less likely to be a historical person.

The rank-raglan was his name given but it is not his list. You likely know this but clarifying for any interested reader. Find the list in: Alan Segal (ed.), In Quest of the Hero (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990).

Thanks, stem. I will try to give Segal a look when I am back on campus, provided our library has a copy. At the end of the day, I really don't get how using this list reflects real personhood versus imaginary personhood at all.

[Res Ipsa]

The trouble I’m having with the ranking is that it doesn’t seem to focus on the right question. Wouldn’t we want to know the percentage of historical figures with high scores on the scale that represent real people? Maybe it’s addressed in the books.

[Kishkumen]

The trouble I’m having with the ranking is that it doesn’t seem to focus on the right question. Wouldn’t we want to know the percentage of historical figures with high scores on the scale that represent real people? Maybe it’s addressed in the books.

I am interested in the fact that so many of these elements are really mundane things that could be said of a number of real people. I suppose it’s the multiplication of unusual characteristics that makes a person less likely to be real? Although, at the same time, real people who are being promoted as special may have any number of these characteristics attributed to them.

The pattern seems to work like this:

Unusual or elite human characteristics are given to the gods, and then those same characteristics are claimed by/for humans to make them seem more special-divine.

The number of actually miraculous elements on the list, however, is fairly small.

[Res Ipsa]

The trouble I’m having with the ranking is that it doesn’t seem to focus on the right question. Wouldn’t we want to know the percentage of historical figures with high scores on the scale that represent real people? Maybe it’s addressed in the books.

I am interested in the fact that so many of these elements are really mundane things that could be said of a number of real people. I suppose it’s the multiplication of unusual characteristics that makes a person less likely to be real? Although, at the same time, real people who are being promoted as special may have any number of these characteristics attributed to them.

The pattern seems to work like this:

Unusual or elite human characteristics are given to the gods, and then those same characteristics are claimed by/for humans to make them seem more special-divine.

The number of actually miraculous elements on the list, however, is fairly small.

Yep. I’m having trouble with that, too. There’s nothing wrong with building a scale based on attributes in common, but you also have to verify it by applying it to a population beyond that used to create the scale. I’m curious as to how that was done in this case.

[Kishkumen]

Another problem here is that as soon as someone is treated as divine in some way, they are going to attract these story elements. If you are special or believe yourself to be special or want to be seen as special, etc,, then you must be:

The child of a god, or your ancestors must have been the children of gods or heroes.

Your life will conform to the patterns found in the lives of gods and heroes.

It is more likely that you will be assimilated to those gods and heroes who lived on the earth.

For the Greeks and Romans that would be Heracles, Dionysus, Aeneas, Asclepius, and so forth.

Even mundane events in your life will be reworked to assimilate them to the divine/heroic pattern.

Once that is done, the elements of divinity “prove” the original claim of your divine origins. QED by circular reasoning.

This process does happen to Jesus. He starts out as an extraordinary human and by the Gospel of John he is God in the flesh. The trajectory is so clear that it amazes me to hear people suggest Jesus started as a myth and then became human. Strange (not) how his most human biography is the first one.