The Jesus myth Part I
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:34 pm
Joseph Smith said something along the lines of Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world. Now, I'll proceed saying this is a Mormon issue, even though we all know it extends far beyond that tiny backwater provincial...ok world religion.
I've done some more homework. last time I brought this up it was clear there was much more to learn on the matter. I won't deny that I have a ways to go still. But I'm feeling ready to continue my journey into the unknown, ready to put it out there so any willing party can defeat the weakness of my position, and I can tuck tail in humility and cower as I recoil into my own mix of insecure assemblies.
I had raised the eyebrows (and not much more, I think) of our esteemed Reverend with my many ignorant statements previously. I don't necessarily expect to be graced with his keen eye and marvelous insight again, but if it happens then it happens, and we'll all be the better for it.
Years back I had read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus. I was intrigued to the point of saying, he has plenty here even if I don't feel anywhere near qualified to review it properly. I know he's been severely criticized over the years but each criticism seems to come up short. He has far more on his take than sneering dismissals can defeat. Since I re-read that book, and read most of Proving History, until I grew bored on the math, and Jesus from Outer Space, I've felt more fond of his case. And though I'll leave it there, I'll note, I've considered many others's views--though certainly not exhaustively.
Ok. with that stage somewhat set, allow me to continue. I've been largely convinced of a mythicist position on Jesus. I think it's safe to say that the story of Jesus is largely myth, as most scholars agree with many detailed and perhaps confusing caveats. Now it's true that most scholars of the New Testament are likely Christians who believe in Jesus, to some level or another, and think the stories told about him, comprise, at least, something of truth. But the discipline of history has revealed that the story of Jesus as found in the gospels is largely made up. The only way to think it is true can't be found in history...one must assume faith. And that simply is no discipline to evaluate academically. Many to most, if not all, believing scholars think Jesus really lived, at minimum. I think their positions or hypotheses are suspect on that one question. But they leave a plethora of material to consider if we examine the historicity of Jesus.
Before digging deep I'd like to point out, if a man named Jesus lived in the early 1st century of this common era, and if that man got himself killed by either Roman or Jewish authorities (some say as many as maybe 100 a week got so killed), there isn't much story here. Since the name Jesus was common enough among jews of that early time (I heard 1 in 26 men might have had that name), it is quite likely, in fact, probable that someone named Jesus was killed by authorities in the early decades of the first century. And it is likely that if there were a Jesus so killed, he was jewish and could very likely have preached his religion. It hardly feels worth asking the question did our Jesus live? Without any evidence of his life, which we have none, it is still possible any one of the Jesus' that lived was used, later, to create the Jesus myth. But if we say that, then we say essentially there was someone who lived in the early first century, and that someone was killed by Jewish or Roman authorities. I would't think that establishes anything about the historicity of the Jesus that is believed to be the Son of God.
Paul was the earliest Christian writer. He doesn't reference a Jesus who had lived on earth. He doesn't quote any teachings from Jesus. He doesn't use as reference anyone who claims to have known a mortal living Jesus. This is all very perplexing. Paul has a couple of references to Jesus possibly living, although mythicists tend to contend these references are either later additions or from later editing. But, let's consider, it appears Paul converted to Christianity and became it's main teacher on the basis of revelation and his familiarity with Old Testament scripture, not because he knew those who claimed to know Jesus, nor because he claimed to be a student of any particular christian teacher. Speaking of, he was at odds with Peter and seemed unimpressed with Peter when they had a one time meeting. Of course we have no words from Peter, so who really knows what Peter thought. But Paul was already pushing for a Cosmopolitan Christianity and he portrayed Peter as being opposed to it. Paul declaring himself victor in the disagreement. The rest of the twelve were either not mentioned by Paul or not considered all that serious to Paul.
With that said about Paul, we have no writings, no contemporary sources of Christianity before Paul. We only know Paul converted and started being a main teacher. After Paul dies? On the historic record, we're back to not hearing a thing about the religion for a while. Then suddenly some decades after Pauls' letters, after Paul was said to have died, out came a letter from an anonymous, as far as we can tell, source, telling the life, the acutal mortal life, of this Jesus. It came out of a land foreign to Jerusalem, written in a language, though said to quote Jesus, not spoken by Jesus. This letter is known today as the Gospel according to Mark.
Its likely Mark wrote down stories circulated among the various groups of Christians, so we can probably safely say someone believed Jesus really lived, some time before. But Mark's letter can't be seen as evidence that Jesus lived, at least, not much more than we can say hearsay represents evidence.
One of the main points from a Christain apologetic perspective is if there was no Jesus how did the religion start and grow so rapidly? Some like, I believe, William Lane Craig, suggest this question represents such a strong point it amounts to evidence for the claims of things like, say, the resurrection and therefore, Jesus having lived. I think it's kind of a silly thought, myself. But i'd be curious of people's opinions on it.
Additionally, if this Jesus had not actually lived, could the religion's story have been formed in those early years? It's a question, perhaps, akin to the Mormon apologetic question of, if god did not inspire the Book of Mormon where else could have possibly come from? Joseph was too dumb to write it. If there were no Jesus then its a wonder so many believed it, apparently, and that the story touches the hearts of millions today.
I've done some more homework. last time I brought this up it was clear there was much more to learn on the matter. I won't deny that I have a ways to go still. But I'm feeling ready to continue my journey into the unknown, ready to put it out there so any willing party can defeat the weakness of my position, and I can tuck tail in humility and cower as I recoil into my own mix of insecure assemblies.
I had raised the eyebrows (and not much more, I think) of our esteemed Reverend with my many ignorant statements previously. I don't necessarily expect to be graced with his keen eye and marvelous insight again, but if it happens then it happens, and we'll all be the better for it.
Years back I had read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus. I was intrigued to the point of saying, he has plenty here even if I don't feel anywhere near qualified to review it properly. I know he's been severely criticized over the years but each criticism seems to come up short. He has far more on his take than sneering dismissals can defeat. Since I re-read that book, and read most of Proving History, until I grew bored on the math, and Jesus from Outer Space, I've felt more fond of his case. And though I'll leave it there, I'll note, I've considered many others's views--though certainly not exhaustively.
Ok. with that stage somewhat set, allow me to continue. I've been largely convinced of a mythicist position on Jesus. I think it's safe to say that the story of Jesus is largely myth, as most scholars agree with many detailed and perhaps confusing caveats. Now it's true that most scholars of the New Testament are likely Christians who believe in Jesus, to some level or another, and think the stories told about him, comprise, at least, something of truth. But the discipline of history has revealed that the story of Jesus as found in the gospels is largely made up. The only way to think it is true can't be found in history...one must assume faith. And that simply is no discipline to evaluate academically. Many to most, if not all, believing scholars think Jesus really lived, at minimum. I think their positions or hypotheses are suspect on that one question. But they leave a plethora of material to consider if we examine the historicity of Jesus.
Before digging deep I'd like to point out, if a man named Jesus lived in the early 1st century of this common era, and if that man got himself killed by either Roman or Jewish authorities (some say as many as maybe 100 a week got so killed), there isn't much story here. Since the name Jesus was common enough among jews of that early time (I heard 1 in 26 men might have had that name), it is quite likely, in fact, probable that someone named Jesus was killed by authorities in the early decades of the first century. And it is likely that if there were a Jesus so killed, he was jewish and could very likely have preached his religion. It hardly feels worth asking the question did our Jesus live? Without any evidence of his life, which we have none, it is still possible any one of the Jesus' that lived was used, later, to create the Jesus myth. But if we say that, then we say essentially there was someone who lived in the early first century, and that someone was killed by Jewish or Roman authorities. I would't think that establishes anything about the historicity of the Jesus that is believed to be the Son of God.
Paul was the earliest Christian writer. He doesn't reference a Jesus who had lived on earth. He doesn't quote any teachings from Jesus. He doesn't use as reference anyone who claims to have known a mortal living Jesus. This is all very perplexing. Paul has a couple of references to Jesus possibly living, although mythicists tend to contend these references are either later additions or from later editing. But, let's consider, it appears Paul converted to Christianity and became it's main teacher on the basis of revelation and his familiarity with Old Testament scripture, not because he knew those who claimed to know Jesus, nor because he claimed to be a student of any particular christian teacher. Speaking of, he was at odds with Peter and seemed unimpressed with Peter when they had a one time meeting. Of course we have no words from Peter, so who really knows what Peter thought. But Paul was already pushing for a Cosmopolitan Christianity and he portrayed Peter as being opposed to it. Paul declaring himself victor in the disagreement. The rest of the twelve were either not mentioned by Paul or not considered all that serious to Paul.
With that said about Paul, we have no writings, no contemporary sources of Christianity before Paul. We only know Paul converted and started being a main teacher. After Paul dies? On the historic record, we're back to not hearing a thing about the religion for a while. Then suddenly some decades after Pauls' letters, after Paul was said to have died, out came a letter from an anonymous, as far as we can tell, source, telling the life, the acutal mortal life, of this Jesus. It came out of a land foreign to Jerusalem, written in a language, though said to quote Jesus, not spoken by Jesus. This letter is known today as the Gospel according to Mark.
Its likely Mark wrote down stories circulated among the various groups of Christians, so we can probably safely say someone believed Jesus really lived, some time before. But Mark's letter can't be seen as evidence that Jesus lived, at least, not much more than we can say hearsay represents evidence.
One of the main points from a Christain apologetic perspective is if there was no Jesus how did the religion start and grow so rapidly? Some like, I believe, William Lane Craig, suggest this question represents such a strong point it amounts to evidence for the claims of things like, say, the resurrection and therefore, Jesus having lived. I think it's kind of a silly thought, myself. But i'd be curious of people's opinions on it.
Additionally, if this Jesus had not actually lived, could the religion's story have been formed in those early years? It's a question, perhaps, akin to the Mormon apologetic question of, if god did not inspire the Book of Mormon where else could have possibly come from? Joseph was too dumb to write it. If there were no Jesus then its a wonder so many believed it, apparently, and that the story touches the hearts of millions today.