The Jesus Myth Part III

[dastardly stem]

And if He did make certain claims, how did/do they differ from the claims of other prophets/savior figures of that time?

ummm...what certain claims are you hypothetically wanting to assume he made? What certain claims do you want him to have made and what certain claims did other prophet/savior figures of the time make?

Along with that, do the teachings which are attributed to Jesus have special and/or unique meaning/application to the human race that the teachings of others didn't have?

I don't see how.

Why Jesus? Was he a 'one off' or another one of many? Why did he win the lottery of popularity among those that were looking for a figurehead...a God... to coalesce/form a faith/political group/faction together?

That's far afield from what we're shooting for here. There are many books on the topic. This is a good book to start down that road:

https://www.bartdehrman.com/books-publi ... 17c842b]/0

Was Jesus an ordinary man like so many others? What made him SO special to have a whole set of scriptural and apocryphal writings written in his behalf?

This thread is asking was there a historical person named Jesus who taught something and started a religion.

For all intents and purposes it seems as if he should have simply disappeared into the backwaters of history and of his geographical area without much of anything left behind.

And yet, here we are.

Regards,
MG

Yes, here we are. Asking questions because we simply can't know. Some say they do know, like Ehrman, who puts his actual existence at a startlingly silly 99% (at least as I see it).

Many have made the type of argument you seem to be going for here, MG--since there is a big movement, that persists even today, it must have started with a real historical figure. That's simply not a logical argument though.

[MG 2.0]

This is a good book to start down that road:

https://www.bartdehrman.com/books-publi ... 17c842b]/0

I've read Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. And I've read some of the Christian apologetics for Jesus. The jury has been in the room deliberating a LONG time without coming to a verdict. Thus, the conversation here. I get that.

And if it wasn't for the Book of Mormon as another witness of Jesus Christ, I'd probably read all of his books. But I don't see the point. The Book of Mormon made the difference for me. One witness can discount the rest if it can be shown that the witness is telling the truth.

Of course, that's where it gets a bit mushy, right?

Anyway, my point is that going back into the muddy waters of history is a worthwhile and interesting excursion, but at the end of the day one is STILL going to be left with going this way or that...with faith/belief...that their narrative holds the most water.

I won't interrupt any further. It is an interesting discussion. I don't want to completely derail it. Carry on.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

I've read Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. And I've read some of the Christian apologetics for Jesus. The jury has been in the room deliberating a LONG time without coming to a verdict. Thus, the conversation here. I get that.

And if it wasn't for the Book of Mormon as another witness of Jesus Christ, I'd probably read all of his books. But I don't see the point. The Book of Mormon made the difference for me. One witness can discount the rest if it can be shown that the witness is telling the truth.

Not a bad statement...but I can't imagine how you apply it here. How can the Book of Mormon can be shown to be telling the truth, and is somehow witness of Jesus having actually lived? I mean, sure. If the Book of Mormon can be shown to do as much, that'd be something. But, if you are saying your faith is that the Book of Mormon is true, then you aren't showing anything, but what you want Old Testament believe is true.

Of course, that's where it gets a bit mushy, right?

Anyway, my point is that going back into the muddy waters of history is a worthwhile and interesting excursion, but at the end of the day one is STILL going to be left with going this way or that...with faith/belief...that their narrative holds the most water.

I won't interrupt any further. It is an interesting discussion. I don't want to completely derail it. Carry on.

Regards,
MG

For me the question is simply, is it better to be rational in what we believe or rely on our traditions and emotions? I go with the latter and that leaves me as a non-believer from a Christian, or for that matter, Mormon perspective.

[PseudoPaul]

This is based on the gospel writers apparent embarrassment about Jesus' association with John. John made disciples by baptizing them. The evangelists couldn't omit the baptism story because it was apparently so widely known, but they add convoluted explanations, making John say he's not worthy to unlatch Jesus' shoes. Because the evangelists are apparently embarrassed, that helps us find the kernel of truth behind the story and their apologetic reframing of it. Similar to the legal concept of testifying against interest. If you admit to something embarrassing it's more likely to be true than saying something that makes you look good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment

I don't see how criterion of embarrassment can be elevated to the status of evidence. i've heard many concerned about this because it is typically only used in New Testament apologetic arguments, as far as I've heard. Additionally, I think it's near impossible to use as a qualified tool for discerning whether something really happened. What one calls an embarrassment might not be so at all. You mention John the Baptist having to unlatch Jesus' shoes. There is no embarrassment there. That is inserting, it appears, a story about a baptizer from an earlier generation in order to exalt this mythologized Jesus.

From Mark we get the tradition that his disciples never understood Jesus' true nature until after his resurrection.[ In the sayings of Jesus (many of which are recorded about contemporary to Paul in the Q source) we have no record of Jesus ever claiming to be divine.

Mark came after Paul, as most historians agree, as I understand it. Q is a hypothesized account. And while some think it really existed no one really knows what it might have had in it. There's no way to know it had sayings of Jesus or if it ever existed. It seems like a dead end to me.

The synoptic gospel writers insinuate that Jesus is divine, but they don't have Jesus make that claim for himself. Only the Gospel of John has Jesus make that claim, but John was written very late and is not thought to preserve the words of the historical Jesus.

None are said to preserve the word of the historical Jesus. I don't see how this answers my question.

So in our best and earliest sources for the sayings of Jesus, we have no tradition of Jesus proclaiming himself to be God or the Son of God.

This assumes two things--there was a historical Jesus and there was a source containing his sayings. Neither of which are anything more than assumptions.

Because Jesus didn't claim that for himself in life, his disciples wouldn't have thought it about Jesus either - that is, until shortly after his death, when they had the vision of the resurrection. That vision is what convinced them Jesus had been made into a divine being.

I'm not contesting all of this is possible, PseudoPaul. I'm asking what evidence is there for any of it? I grant it's possible. It's possible Jesus lived and didn't think himself divine in any sense. Its possible he lived and preached something. It's possible he upset authorities and got himself killed. It's possible he gained followers and taught them. The problem is we have no direct evidence of that. We simply have stories from anonymous authors that this all happened, without any claimed source to verify the claims.

There are two schools of thought - Jesus either thought he was the messiah (king of Israel) or he didn't. The former is the majority position, but the latter has support of some significant scholars too. The messiah however wasn't like a divine being and he wasn't supposed to be killed for anyone's sins.

So basically either Jesus thought he was the future king of Israel, or he thought he was a prophet like John the Baptist.

But neither school can demonstrate that Jesus actually thought that. All we can do is make some assumptions that seem reasonable. We don't' know anything Jesus said about anything, it seems to me.

The evidence is in the extant texts, and we recover history from out of the texts using critical analysis of those texts, combined with an understanding of the sitz im Leben surrounding those texts. You can throw up your hands and say we can't know anything - and while it's true that in history nothing is certain, we do work from certain probabilities. What I've given you are the most probable scenarios - as opposed to the mythicist position, which has yet to convince any notable scholars in the field and is grouped among the least probable scenarios.

[huckelberry]

Dastardly Stem

I have heard it said that everybody knows people do not rise from the dead so it is reasonable to think Jesus did not.

This statement, and I have heard people more respectable than me say it, contains the first point which Carrier presents without his load of analytic sounding decoration. It is reasonable. I find the proposal that for Jesus to have actually risen would require a lot of evidence unclear. It could have happened with no evidence ,small evidence or more evidence.

I find less persuasive the proposal the the New Testament is not evidence that a Jesus person who was a kind of apocalyptic prophet who got crucified by Roman soldiers existed. I think it is clear and strong evidence. I do not see the fact that the gospels are second hand accounts negates their status as evidence.

Hey Huck--what do you make of the fact that there are no first-hand account Gospels of Jesus?

Sock Puppet , you know that I have no way to be sure of the answer here. It has caused me and well most anybody to have wondered a few times. Possibilities, the first hand witnesses had poor, limited or no writing skills. It is possible that they were not looking forward enough in time to think it useful to write out a story. The initial spread of the story was word of moth. There is evidence of some saying collections. Such things could have thought of as all that was needed for a while.

The delay and distance of course allows space for stories to grow and rather romantic embellishment to be added. The words recorded have signs of having been influenced by the thinking of early followers after Jesus's death. The tension showing in those changes is an indication that there was an original Jesus who spoke and followers whose memory of his words was altered by their own experience and understanding.

[dastardly stem]

The evidence is in the extant texts, and we recover history from out of the texts using critical analysis of those texts, combined with an understanding of the sitz im Leben surrounding those texts. You can throw up your hands and say we can't know anything - and while it's true that in history nothing is certain, we do work from certain probabilities. What I've given you are the most probable scenarios - as opposed to the mythicist position, which has yet to convince any notable scholars in the field and is grouped among the least probable scenarios.

Let's try not to appeal to authority just yet. The question on the table is not whether authorities have an opinion one way over the other, but is whether the most probable scenario is best represented by mythicism or hsitoricism. If we just assume most authorities say one is best, then we have little discussion. The numbers and the arguments are laid out on mythicism. So far for hsitoricity all we have is a bare number offered off the cuff by Ehrman. With little else under consideration. The problem here is, authorities may possibly be wrong at any given time on any given hypothesis. Investigating it doesn't hurt. Indeed Ehrman always says "don't take my word for it"

[Kishkumen]

I don't see how criterion of embarrassment can be elevated to the status of evidence. i've heard many concerned about this because it is typically only used in New Testament apologetic arguments, as far as I've heard. Additionally, I think it's near impossible to use as a qualified tool for discerning whether something really happened. What one calls an embarrassment might not be so at all. You mention John the Baptist having to unlatch Jesus' shoes. There is no embarrassment there. That is inserting, it appears, a story about a baptizer from an earlier generation in order to exalt this mythologized Jesus.

The evidence is the record of the relationship between John and Jesus. The questions are: How strong is the evidence? What does it tell us?

[dastardly stem]

The evidence is the record of the relationship between John and Jesus. The questions are: How strong is the evidence? What does it tell us?

Sure, I think that makes more sense than the criterion of embarrassment. It'd be fair to ask how much weight that suggestion in the gospels should hold. In the historical record the story of Jesus interacting with John the baptist didn't come until Mark. Paul never mentions it. It very well could be that Mark was made aware of a John the Baptist from earlier times and incorporated him into the mythologized story of Jesus. Later authors, like those who worte Matthew, Luke and Acts (the same author of Luke) might have simply picked up on Mark's lead. The problem with considering this as evidence that Jesus really lived is this scenario is all too possible. So it doesn't feel like it should carry much weight in addressing the question. As it is a mythicist could simply say, that's the type of thing we'd expect on a mythologized story for Jesus--someone trying to tie in a known jewish teacher, of sorts, from the era into the story. And it fits, to some degree, Old Testament lore.

[PseudoPaul]

This is a good book to start down that road:

https://www.bartdehrman.com/books-publi ... 17c842b]/0

I've read Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. And I've read some of the Christian apologetics for Jesus. The jury has been in the room deliberating a LONG time without coming to a verdict. Thus, the conversation here. I get that.

And if it wasn't for the Book of Mormon as another witness of Jesus Christ, I'd probably read all of his books. But I don't see the point. The Book of Mormon made the difference for me. One witness can discount the rest if it can be shown that the witness is telling the truth.

Of course, that's where it gets a bit mushy, right?

Anyway, my point is that going back into the muddy waters of history is a worthwhile and interesting excursion, but at the end of the day one is STILL going to be left with going this way or that...with faith/belief...that their narrative holds the most water.

I won't interrupt any further. It is an interesting discussion. I don't want to completely derail it. Carry on.

Regards,
MG

Mainstream Biblical scholarship rules out the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

[PseudoPaul]

The evidence is in the extant texts, and we recover history from out of the texts using critical analysis of those texts, combined with an understanding of the sitz im Leben surrounding those texts. You can throw up your hands and say we can't know anything - and while it's true that in history nothing is certain, we do work from certain probabilities. What I've given you are the most probable scenarios - as opposed to the mythicist position, which has yet to convince any notable scholars in the field and is grouped among the least probable scenarios.

Let's try not to appeal to authority just yet. The question on the table is not whether authorities have an opinion one way over the other, but is whether the most probable scenario is best represented by mythicism or hsitoricism. If we just assume most authorities say one is best, then we have little discussion. The numbers and the arguments are laid out on mythicism. So far for hsitoricity all we have is a bare number offered off the cuff by Ehrman. With little else under consideration. The problem here is, authorities may possibly be wrong at any given time on any given hypothesis. Investigating it doesn't hurt. Indeed Ehrman always says "don't take my word for it"

"I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare."