The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[Physics Guy]

Raglan and Rank do not seem ever to have found even a single case where an initially mythic figure was later assigned specific historic details, fictitiously, in order to make them out, falsely, as having been a real person who really lived, not just somewhere indefinite at some indefinite time, but in a particular place and time that was specified. There have indeed been many mythic heroes. None of them seem to have CVs.

I can't think of any confirmed examples of the historical phenomenon that the Jesus mythicists propose. Do they offer any?

[Physics Guy]

We have a little heap of some pale, gritty stuff. A few people have always claimed that the heap is pure salt. A few people have recently appeared to insist that it's all sand, with no salt at all. Most people, though, have been saying for a long time that the heap is a mixture of salt and sand.

The all-sand people start by arguing against the all-salt people. They pick out grain after grain from the heap, until they've picked out a dozen or two. They show at great length, pedantically, how much each of these picked-out grains looks like a grain from this beach, and also like a grain from this other beach, and like one from that beach as well.

The all-salt people leave, muttering angrily. So they're gone. Now it's between the all-sand and the mixture camps.

The all-sand people present their new argument, against the salt-and-sand theory. This is the big argument, the only real argument. The all-salt folks were an old-fashioned minority whom no-one has taken seriously for a long time now, anyway. So here goes, the big, new all-sand argument against the longstanding majority view that the heap is mixed salt and sand.

The all-sand people pick out grain after grain from the heap, until they've picked out a dozen or two. They show at great length, pedantically, how much each of these picked-out grains looks like a grain from this beach, and also like a grain from this other beach, and like one from that beach as well.

The mixture people leave, shaking their heads.

[High Spy]

I agree stem, it would be helpful to know what the basic timeline of your hypothesis is. Who started it, who created what and why, ect.

I’m very interested in alternative hypotheses, I just think they should be contrasted with the mainstream hypothesis for clarification.

The Christian one is different than the Mormon one is different than the Bart Ehrman one, so it’s useful to lay out which one we’re talking about. I think you’re laying out the popular but controversial mythesist position where Jesus didn’t exist at all.

Weird a guy’s name that never existed would be spelled out in two recent miracles, which in part may be discovered by searching keyword CRIST.

[dastardly stem]

Raglan and Rank do not seem ever to have found even a single case where an initially mythic figure was later assigned specific historic details, fictitiously, in order to make them out, falsely, as having been a real person who really lived, not just somewhere indefinite at some indefinite time, but in a particular place and time that was specified. There have indeed been many mythic heroes. None of them seem to have CVs.

I can't think of any confirmed examples of the historical phenomenon that the Jesus mythicists propose. Do they offer any?

Well, yeah I've already alluded to the examples. It seems in a way you just keep moving the goalposts.

You had said:

if we could see how well it worked on some other cases in which concrete but fictitious historical details were invented and attributed to superhuman figures of legend or religion.

Now you are saying something more like, ok, but can we find a character who was given a specific time? But, Jesus' time of actual birth and death are disputed? There are even Talmudic sources that put him living 100 years earlier than traditional views. Or maybe we ought to wonder since Jesus was a later adaptation of the more ancient myths, we might have to consider his unique case a little differently. The attempt to specify his life a little more may had been, at the time, a more modern move? or maybe it was part of the attempt to make him better than the other examples that they were attempting to mimick? more detail the better the myth?

But, even still, if we can propose one such figure who has a specific year of his/her birth, your whole point goes out the window, no?

Roman historians dated the city's foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reports the calculation of Varro's friend Tarutius that 771 BC was the birth year of Romulus and his twin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus

Some summarized details of Osiris:

Osiris was at times considered the eldest son of the earth god Geb[8] and the sky goddess Nut, as well as being brother and husband of Isis, and brother of Set, Nephthys, and Horus the Elder, with Horus the Younger being considered his posthumously begotten son.[8][9] Through syncretism with Iah, he was also a god of the Moon.[10]

Osiris was the judge and lord of the dead and the underworld, the "Lord of Silence"[11] and Khenti-Amentiu, meaning "Foremost of the Westerners".[12] In the Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC) the pharaoh was considered a son of the sun god Ra who, after his death, ascended to join Ra in the sky. After the spread of the Osiris cult, however, the kings of Egypt were associated with Osiris in death – as Osiris rose from the dead, they would unite with him and inherit eternal life through imitative magic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#:~ ... %20a%20god.

Aesclepius:

Asclepius was the son of Apollo and, according to the earliest accounts, a mortal woman named Koronis (Coronis), who was a princess of Tricca in Thessaly.[6][7] When she displayed infidelity by sleeping with a mortal named Ischys, Apollo realised this with his prophetic powers and killed Ischys. Coronis was killed by Artemis for being unfaithful to Apollo and was laid out on a funeral pyre to be consumed, but Apollo rescued the child by cutting him from Coronis' womb.[8]

According to Delphian tradition, Asclepius was born in the temple of Apollo, with Lachesis acting as a midwife and Apollo relieving the pains of Coronis. Apollo named the child after Coronis' nickname, Aegle.[9

Not sure I want to continue with this. The claim that the characters in the Rank Raglan set must have as much detail to their myths as Jesus seems to miss the point and draw an arbitrary line in the sand. That's simply not the criteria. Or better put just because Jesus is more heavily mythologized, does not mean he must have lived. That seems to miss the point.

[drumdude]

If the brethren are to be believed, you can just go up to the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and ask the blond haired blue eyed Aryan man in the red toga holding a lamb advising the First Presidency if he is the same Nazarene as depicted in the gospels.

The brethren have never claimed that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... face_deep/

https://www.ldsliving.com/8-divine-acco ... or/s/86605

No. The brethren have never claimed that "you can just go up" to the Holy of Holies, etc. Only the prophet can do that, not any Tom, Dick & Harry.

Sounds like a challenge for Mike Norton.

[dastardly stem]

We have a little heap of some pale, gritty stuff. A few people have always claimed that the heap is pure salt. A few people have recently appeared to insist that it's all sand, with no salt at all. Most people, though, have been saying for a long time that the heap is a mixture of salt and sand.

The all-sand people start by arguing against the all-salt people. They pick out grain after grain from the heap, until they've picked out a dozen or two. They show at great length, pedantically, how much each of these picked-out grains looks like a grain from this beach, and also like a grain from this other beach, and like one from that beach as well.

The all-salt people leave, muttering angrily. So they're gone. Now it's between the all-sand and the mixture camps.

The all-sand people present their new argument, against the salt-and-sand theory. This is the big argument, the only real argument. The all-salt folks were an old-fashioned minority whom no-one has taken seriously for a long time now, anyway. So here goes, the big, new all-sand argument against the longstanding majority view that the heap is mixed salt and sand.

The all-sand people pick out grain after grain from the heap, until they've picked out a dozen or two. They show at great length, pedantically, how much each of these picked-out grains looks like a grain from this beach, and also like a grain from this other beach, and like one from that beach as well.

The mixture people leave, shaking their heads.

The problem is the heap never was anything but sand. People are simply pointing to a sand pile and pretending underneath it lies all the salt. When someone digs into it, there is no salt. The pretending people all complain that the sand people are being way too thorough in their evaluation. "You're being pedantic for inspecting the pile. It's tedious work to dig into it." They complain.

"well", says the sand people, "it wasn't near as hard a task as you imagined. If you but picked up a shovel and dig a little you too would find the same result. Or perhaps you are right. Dig and find the salt. Let's contribute to the actual studies together and find the best result."

"No", whine the mixed people. "its just easier to think there is a pile of salt buried under the sand."

"then, by all means", the sand people retort, "please demonstrate your position."

"meh...its easier just to pretend and attack you in all the ways we can flap our arms."

"ok, guess, we're stuck until one of you picks up a shovel and attempts to dig. We'll hold out faith in that. How's that sound?"

[dastardly stem]

Bart Ehrman has never done, or referenced, any peer reviewed work on the subject?

The last evaluation of jesus' historicity found in the literature that results in a likely scenario of Jesus living was published in 1923 written by Shirley Jackson--The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention That Jesus Never Lived (University of Chicago Press 1912; 2nd ed. 1923).

Its outdated now and is not useful considering all the advancement in the past 100 years. Has Ehrman ever referenced her work? I don't know. He may have. But I don't remember him doing so. It'd be nice if the scholars of our day took the issue seriously and gave us a published work that would contend with the scholarship from mythicists. As I've pointed out before, this was mentioned by Carrier in his published works, pleading with other scholars to provide something. They have not to date.

[PseudoPaul]

The quest for the historical Jesus is all about using what evidence we have and applying historical criteria to try to undercover the Jesus of history. Using that process could result in a "Jesus was just invented" conclusion, but for the vast majority of scholars, and for all major New Testament scholars, it has not lead to that conclusion. It results in a rather more humble and Jewish picture of who Jesus was as a person. Separating Yeshuah of Nazareth from the Christ figure of the creeds. No one would invent a failed messiah who was defeated by Roman authority as the basis for their messianic myth. The real Jesus is far too inconvenient for Christians to have invented him.

You're just moving the goalposts because you prefer your conspiracy theory. Like all conspiracy theorists, being a contrarian makes you feel special, smarter than everyone else. It's the same thing regardless of if you're an anti-vaxxer, a Sandy Hook hoaxer, or a Jesus mythicist.

Yes it is quite possible for someone to take the assumption of historicity and try and determine a likely scenario for Jesus in history and decide he wasn’t historical. It’s also possible for one to take the assumption and not defy that assumption. But that’s not the point at all. But if there is no historical case for historicity so be it. And thanks.

The way you're framing this shows a complete lack of understanding of how scholarship works and your interest in your polemical goals as a propagandist.

[drumdude]

I don’t think it’s worth getting so worked up. We have the evidence we have. It happened 2000 years ago.

If you think the odds are 90/10 or 10/90, is that really such an important distinction?

Believers will continue to believe 100% and 0%. The rest of us should be ok with ambiguity.

[dastardly stem]

The way you're framing this shows a complete lack of understanding of how scholarship works and your interest in your polemical goals as a propagandist.

Alright, thanks for the posturing. if you have a case for historicity, I'm all ears.