The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[dastardly stem]

I haven't seen where. I've read the scholarship and have read the pop books like Erhman's. I've critiqued his book here to some degree of depth. I've interacted with some of the most ardent historicists. I'm not sure what you think you're proving by saying these things.

All of that said, I'm still quite interested in any credible case someone can present. If you have it, please stop dodging and provide something.

I really like you, stem, but I think you are on a completely different quest from a historical one.

You Butt! Just kidding. I like you too, Kishkumen. Thanks for saying as much. I don't know how to categorize quests. I'd say I'm seeking truth as I move along day by day (don't we all?). But, self assessment gets tough and may be at least a bit unfair. Luckily I bog myself down with plenty of pursuits and it'd be silly, if you ask me in my own silly self-assessment, to think I have much invested in this topic. There is plenty interesting here, but in the sum, it doesn't matter to me at all if the Jesus character lived or not (that's probably why I'm more of a 50/50 guy). I just happen to feel persuaded by plenty of articles of scholarship and thought to some degree or another.

Anyway, all my best to you.

[Kishkumen]

You Butt! Just kidding. I like you too, Kishkumen. Thanks for saying as much. I don't know how to categorize quests. I'd say I'm seeking truth as I move along day by day (don't we all?). But, self assessment gets tough and may be at least a bit unfair. Luckily I bog myself down with plenty of pursuits and it'd be silly, if you ask me in my own silly self-assessment, to think I have much invested in this topic. There is plenty interesting here, but in the sum, it doesn't matter to me at all if the Jesus character lived or not (that's probably why I'm more of a 50/50 guy). I just happen to feel persuaded by plenty of articles of scholarship and thought to some degree or another.

Anyway, all my best to you.

What puzzles me here is why it should matter whether a Jesus son of Mary and Joseph lived or not, such that it becomes the focus of dubious arguments of granular probabilities. He appears to have lived, but that is not the important question. The important question is whether he was resurrected or not. You simply can’t prove it, any more than you can prove that the emperor Vespasian really did heal two sick Alexandrians in 69 CE. All we can say is that these historical individuals were credited with miracles.

Much more is known about Vespasian. There is much more evidence of his life. Are you any more confident that he healed these people? I’m not.

[Failed Prophecy]

He appears to have lived, but that is not the important question. The important question is whether he was resurrected or not.

Perhaps that's the point of the entire exercise, to avoid the important question altogether. If one gives an unreasonable answer to the former question, the latter question becomes easy to answer.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps that's the point of the entire exercise, to avoid the important question altogether. If one gives an unreasonable answer to the former question, the latter question becomes easy to answer.

Above all, I believe that the principal goal ought to be making people better thinkers, not strategizing to win at all costs. I was not impressed with Richard Carrier’s arguments because they lacked sensitivity to narrative and genre. It was as though he treated the gospels like 20th century history textbooks. He would subjectively judge that a sequence of events was plausible or not and conclude that no historical person would have experienced events in that way. I did not see his method really helping his readers understand the text on its own terms any better. We are better served learning about the thought world of antiquity to grapple with interpreting its texts than simply asking whether something is likely to have happened or not. I’ll walk you through Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and point out lots of things that probably did not happen as reported. That has no bearing on whether he existed or not. We know he did.

[mcjathan]

What puzzles me here is why it should matter whether a Jesus son of Mary and Joseph lived or not, such that it becomes the focus of dubious arguments of granular probabilities. He appears to have lived, but that is not the important question. The important question is whether he was resurrected or not. You simply can’t prove it, any more than you can prove that the emperor Vespasian really did heal two sick Alexandrians in 69 CE. All we can say is that these historical individuals were credited with miracles.

Much more is known about Vespasian. There is much more evidence of his life. Are you any more confident that he healed these people? I’m not.

Well said, thank you for articulating this!

[dastardly stem]

What puzzles me here is why it should matter whether a Jesus son of Mary and Joseph lived or not,

Similar here. Why should it matter if Moses, Adam, King Arthur, or another character really lived or were based on someone who did? It’s a question for history, at the very least, and that may matter in some realm.

such that it becomes the focus of dubious arguments of granular probabilities.

If dubious could be demonstrated then so be it.

He appears to have lived, but that is not the important question.

It’s a matter of perspective I suppose. Something important to one is not so much to another.

The important question is whether he was resurrected or not.

Why is that important, as if more so than other questions in history? If Jesus never existed, then the resurrection, like previous storied resurrections of whatever sort, isn’t all that interesting other than a tale with in a myth. But that’s the case even if marks story had some person who had lived in mind. Mark is being very memetic in his approach, at least according to macDonald. So the question did Jesus really resurrect may not, depending on perspective, be all that important at all. It’s merely part of the mythologizing.

You simply can’t prove it, any more than you can prove that the emperor Vespasian really did heal two sick Alexandrians in 69 CE.

That’s right. And not being able to validate claimed miracles in history is the very reason why it’s more likely they are simply tales. But we ought to keep clear, the question of one claim—a miracle story—and another—like whether a certain character written about lives are two separate questions. Neither is more important than the other. They’re simply different.

all we can say is that these historical individuals were credited with miracles.

We can say much much more than that. That’s the impetus behind all the writings that continue to this day, and behind the whole discipline of study that will no doubt continue beyond our day. This is interesting stuff not just because it’s history, I grant. But also because so many believe with certainty so many things that seem unlikely.

Much more is known about Vespasian. There is much more evidence of his life. Are you any more confident that he healed these people? I’m not.

No. That’s just a different question. And I think we can be happy that there is much more that can be said about Vespasian and Jesus…and it’s nice we can enjoy the fruits of scholarly endeavors.

[dastardly stem]

He appears to have lived, but that is not the important question. The important question is whether he was resurrected or not.

Perhaps that's the point of the entire exercise, to avoid the important question altogether. If one gives an unreasonable answer to the former question, the latter question becomes easy to answer.

What I find silly about this approach is any person can grant, say, the historicity of jesus for the sake of seriously taking a look at the question of whether jesus resurrected. These are simply two separate questions. You can approach them each with the same degree of importance if you like.

[dastardly stem]

Above all, I believe that the principal goal ought to be making people better thinkers, not strategizing to win at all costs. I was not impressed with Richard Carrier’s arguments because they lacked sensitivity to narrative and genre. It was as though he treated the gospels like 20th century history textbooks. He would subjectively judge that a sequence of events was plausible or not and conclude that no historical person would have experienced events in that way.

Not sure what you mean by this because I experienced it differently. He treated the gospels as they were—first century texts, as I saw it. But that’s not really the point of this thread.

I did not see his method really helping his readers understand the text on its own terms any better. We are better served learning about the thought world of antiquity to grapple with interpreting its texts than simply asking whether something is likely to have happened or not. I’ll walk you through Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and point out lots of things that probably did not happen as reported. That has no bearing on whether he existed or not. We know he did.

I disagree with this approach. I think we can do both…did this really happen is a big part of the equation. And no doubt there is far more to it than that. And I thin getting walked through Suetonius’ biography would be interesting. I’d be up for it.

[Kishkumen]

Not sure what you mean by this because I experienced it differently. He treated the gospels as they were—first century texts, as I saw it. But that’s not really the point of this thread.

Neither Symmachus nor I agree that he does, and both Symmachus and I have been trained to be professionals at reading such texts. Carrier proposes a new way of reading these texts that tosses aside a lot of what distinguishes them as first century texts in the way he approaches them. I have seen it in action. I think it is bad methodology.

I disagree with this approach. I think we can do both…did this really happen is a big part of the equation. And no doubt there is far more to it than that. And I thin getting walked through Suetonius’ biography would be interesting. I’d be up for it.

Ancient historians are rhetoricians first, then dealers in facts. The rhetoric is usually the primary point. Something may have happened, but how it was reported may twist it out of all recognition. Thus it may appear more incredible than it was or it may not have happened. Great care must be exercised. Knowing the tropes and rhetorical tendencies is paramount. If one asks in a vaccuum, is this plausible, without any real consideration of the rhetoric and tropes, then the results of the did it happen investigation may be a hash.

[Kishkumen]

Go read Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ life on Capri and then tell me what you think the facts are.