The Jesus Myth Part III

[Manetho]

If you can provide some premises and conclusions for something solid, I'd like to see it.

Every time supporting evidence is given to you, you reject it based on Carrier's contrived efforts to explain it away.

Josephus didn't actually write about James the brother of Jesus-who-was-called-Messiah. Instead, he wrote about James the brother of Jesus-the-son-of-Damneus, but some Christian copyist inserted the phrase "who was called Messiah" in the margins, even though Christians rarely used the phrase "was called Messiah" for Jesus (preferring, like the Christian interpolator who inserted or altered the Testimonium Flavianum, to baldly assert that Jesus was the Messiah). And then somebody else saw "son of Damneus" appearing twice in the passage, thought it was a dittography, and deleted the first occurrence and inserted the marginal note in its place. Yes, that's far more logical than assuming that Josephus's text means what it seems to mean, or that Paul's references to Jesus being a descendant of David and born to a woman mean what they seem to mean, or assuming that Paul's reference to "the brother of the Lord" refers to just another Christian even though "the brother of the Lord" is clearly applied to James alone and not to the other Christians who are mentioned in the same sentence. No, none of that evidence is good enough. It's far better methodology to compare Jesus to a list of traits of mythological hero figures to see if he looks like a myth.

[dastardly stem]

Yes, if you see a finger and yet say you do not because a likeminded person has told you that it is not there when you see it, then you will hold onto this bizarre position for dear might. As we have explored many times before, ancient history is an evidence poor field of study, and yet people generally accept the existence of most individuals who are named by near-contemporary sources. And, believe me, in ancient history within half a century is near-contemporary. Somehow it is only in the case of Jesus that an allergic reaction to an insidiously awful ideology has motivated people like Carrier to reject the traditional standard of evidence and endeavor to create a new one in a bid to invalidate completely the ideology in question: imperial christianity.

The funny thing is, as you repeatedly bump up against in your exchanges with honorentheos, the Incarnation of the Christ is not the kind of thing that requires rejecting Jesus' historicity to dismiss. No, Carrier and his fellow travelers believe, rightly or wrongly, that imperial christians will hold onto the Incarnation of Christ until they can be disabused of the existence of a body for Christ to incarnate into. Hence all of the passion, money, and time that is expended on this quixotic enterprise.

It's worth quoting what Carrier actually said on the point:

I have always assumed without worry that Jesus was just a guy, another merely human founder of an entirely natural religion (whatever embellishments to his cult and story may have followed). I’d be content if I were merely reassured of that fact. For the evidence, even at its best, supports no more startling conclusion. So, I have no vested interest in proving Jesus didn’t exist. It makes no difference to me if he did. I suspect he might not have, but then that’s a question that requires a rigorous and thorough examination of the evidence before it can be confidently declared. Most secular scholars agree—even when they believe Jesus existed, they do not need to believe that.

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (p. 10). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.

Thanks, Analytics. This is a great point. People are intent on creating Carrier's position, in straw man way, and then complaining about his motives. This, to me, turns out to be a good exercise in reasoning. Yes, on Kish's point, we can't get too caught up on evidence for ancient history, because it's not there. And yes, granted, we simply just take for granted, as assumption, that when people get mentioned, they were there. Jesus is a different case, though. There is a reason to evaluate whether characters in history really existed or not. There's a reason why people reject the historicity of Osiris, and Adam. Jesus, as we hear about him, is simply a mythologized character, no matter how we slice it. If there were a Jesus behind the myth where was he and who was he? No one really knows. We guess, we assume...and there's some safety in that. But that's a pile of assumptions, that may mean there really was no Jesus anyway.

Let's get serious, its bad reasoning to dismiss qualified scholarship because we want to impugn the character of someone, attribute poor motives to that person, and continually straw man his/her position to claim the appearance of victory. That's boring.

Honor keeps saying the matter is settled, and yet I haven't seen anyone do much more than act as gnats flying around the arguments and scholarship trying to take annoying snips from the periphery, acting as if those snips have landed deciding blows.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks for the comments, Manetho.

Every time supporting evidence is given to you, you reject it based on Carrier's contrived efforts to explain it away.

I don't think so. But I suppose at some point we have to disagree on methodology if we're arriving at different conclusions.

Josephus didn't actually write about James the brother of Jesus-who-was-called-Messiah.

There is a solid case made to say Josephus didn't actually write "who was called Messiah" and think it was something added later, by Christian handlers. I can't help that. Many scholars agree with that.

Instead, he wrote about James the brother of Jesus-the-son-of-Damneus, but some Christian copyist inserted the phrase "who was called Messiah" in the margins, even though Christians rarely used the phrase "was called Messiah" for Jesus (preferring, like the Christian interpolator who inserted or altered the Testimonium Flavianum, to baldly assert that Jesus was the Messiah). And then somebody else saw "son of Damneus" appearing twice in the passage, thought it was a dittography, and deleted the first occurrence and inserted the marginal note in its place. Yes, that's far more logical than assuming that Josephus's text means what it seems to mean,

That's not really the only case to be made on the brief line from Josephus, of course. That you seem to dismiss the possibility that a copier could have added the note about the Christ, when it simply doesn't fit the context, hardly means it's not worth considering.

Here's more in case it was missed previously:

This James passage was unknown to Origen (despite his explicit search of Josephus for Jesus material in his answer to Celsus). All claims to the contrary until now have been mistaken on that point.
Because in fact, it’s objectively evident that Origen mistook a story about James in Hegesippus as being in Josephus (a kind of mistake I document Origen sometimes made).
All other accounts of the death of James the brother of Jesus do not match this one in Josephus; they therefore had no knowledge of this passage being about the Christian James (Eusebius is the first author to ever think so; and the first to ever quote it from Josephus).
We know Acts used Josephus as a source text for historical color, yet the author of Acts never noticed this passage as being about Jesus Christ (which is inexplicable, given that if it was, then it shows Jews being punished for persecuting Christians, exactly the kind of thing the author of Acts strove to include; instead, Acts never mentions this James even being martyred).
If Josephus had written this passage as about the persecution of Christians, he would have explained things, as is his style consistently in all his historical writing; only a Christian would just assume all those obscure things were already known to the reader (like what a “Christ” was; that James was a Christian; that Jews sought to kill Christians; and why, we must then suppose, the Jewish elite and Roman authorities opposed the killing of James if he was a Christian).
The words tou legomenou christou, “the [one] called Christ,” is for these and many other reasons most likely a marginal note (by Origen or Pamphilus, or another scribe or scholar in the same Library of Caesarea), expressing belief rather than fact (possibly trying to find the passage Origen claimed he’d seen here but mistakenly saw instead in Hegesippus).
That marginal note was then accidentally interpolated into the manuscript produced or used by Eusebius (which would have been a copy of the one used by Origen), a very common form of scribal error.
Possibly by replacing ton tou damnaiou, “the son of Damneus,” in the same place. That same line is repeated at the end of the story. Repetition of that identical phrase a few lines after may have led a scribe to suspect the marginal note was correcting a dittograph (an accidental duplication caused by a previous scribe skipping some lines by mistake, starting at the “wrong” Jesus in the story). But more likely, that duplication is exactly what Josephus meant: Ananus is punished for killing the brother of Jesus ben Damneus by being deposed and replaced by Jesus ben Damneus.
All arguments against interpolation in print to date have assumed the entire passage was interpolated (not just the one phrase) and that it was deliberate (instead of accidental or conjectural). Consequently, none of those opinions is citeable. Because they have not taken into account this alternative theory of the evidence or the evidence in support of it.

https://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/12071#james

or that Paul's references to Jesus being a descendant of David and born to a woman mean what they seem to mean, or assuming that Paul's reference to "the brother of the Lord" refers to just another Christian even though "the brother of the Lord" is clearly applied to James alone and not to the other Christians who are mentioned in the same sentence. No, none of that evidence is good enough. It's far better methodology to compare Jesus to a list of traits of mythological hero figures to see if he looks like a myth.

In truth, Carrier counts these as evidence for historicity in some cases. So, this is just missing the boat, more, Manetho.

But for further reading, rather than dismissals I've found some pieces to address each of these.

Paul's references to Jesus being a descendant of David

The best response a historicist can make to Paul’s choice of phrasing is that Paul must be echoing an early belief in some kind of virgin birth theology that was already being attributed to Jesus, that he is describing God manufacturing Jesus’s body in the womb of Mary using Davidic seed. Though Paul never says that exactly (he never mentions Mary, and only mentions Jesus having a mother in an extended argument elsewhere that declares the mothers he is speaking of are allegorical). But notably, this is exactly what the Gospel nativities display: in neither Matthew nor Luke is Jesus biologically descended from Davidic seed (Joseph never imparts that seed to Mary); he is directly manufactured in the womb of Mary by God (or by the Holy Spirit, acting as God’s agent).

So how can even the Gospels mean Jesus was born of the seed of David? They must be assuming exactly what I propose: that God took the seed of David and used it to manufacture a body for Jesus. In other words, miraculously. Not biologically. And if they can imagine God doing that, Paul could imagine God doing it. And if Paul imagined God doing it, he could as easily imagine God doing it in outer space as on earth. Because where a miracle happens is no longer bound to reality. It’s no longer actually a historical event (just one believed to be, but we well know never happened), hence no longer limited by earth biology.

read the whole piece

Paul's reference to "the brother of the Lord" refers to just another Christian even though "the brother of the Lord" is clearly applied to James alone and not to the other Christians who are mentioned in the same sentence. No, none of that evidence is good enough.

Hence I’ve long noted this is the best evidence there is for historicity. I even count it as 2 to 1 in favor of historicity in OHJ. The problem, however, is not the validity of the argument, but its soundness. A sound argument has to be not only valid, but its premises also have to be well-established as true—and not in doubt. Otherwise any doubt we have in the premises transfers to the conclusion, and we then have to doubt the conclusion as much or even more. And ample doubts exist as to the central premise: that Paul ever says he knew an actual biological brother of Jesus (much less a Jesus “of Nazareth,” since Paul never mentions anything like Nazareth or “Nazarene” being connected to Jesus).

Given what we have from Paul, this is just as likely, if not more likely, than the alternative reading, because we have evidence direct from Paul that he knows of cultic Brothers of the Lord (as in Romans 8:29 he says all Christians are brothers of the Lord), but no evidence he knows of biological brothers of the Lord, a significantly different category of person. So when Paul says “Brothers of the Lord,” he never says which kind he means; and had he known that there were two different kinds of such brothers, the cultic and the biological, he would need to clarify which he meant. That he never clarifies which he meant, means he only knew of one kind. And the only kind of such brother we can clearly establish he knew, was the cultic. And if even that doesn’t move you, he still doesn’t tell you which he meant; so you can’t otherwise claim to know.

So on this, while Carrier leaves this as good evidence, as far as we can muster, for historicity, there's plenty to question about it. It's worth considering, at the least.

This is why it feels like we're getting nowhere, though, on this. No one's really getting much into it. They have lead with their assumptions about Carrier and his work and have failed to actually give it a serious go. Hey, that's fine. I have no issue with people just following the majority. But doing so does not provide a good argument. it does not defeat a minority held position. It amounts to something more along the lines of "i don't want to think that way". And that's just not how this should work.

[Kishkumen]

It's worth quoting what Carrier actually said on the point:

I have always assumed without worry that Jesus was just a guy, another merely human founder of an entirely natural religion (whatever embellishments to his cult and story may have followed). I’d be content if I were merely reassured of that fact. For the evidence, even at its best, supports no more startling conclusion. So, I have no vested interest in proving Jesus didn’t exist. It makes no difference to me if he did. I suspect he might not have, but then that’s a question that requires a rigorous and thorough examination of the evidence before it can be confidently declared. Most secular scholars agree—even when they believe Jesus existed, they do not need to believe that.

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (p. 10). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes, I really don't buy it. His financial backers are definitely interested in more than just the facts of Jesus' existence. There is a reason why this argument has been recycled and fitted out with new mathematical garb. It is the perceived, frightening power of religious ideologies in the world that drives their wealthy opponents to funnel money to guys like Carrier. Whatever Carrier actually thinks about what he is doing, he knows who butters his bread. Carrier's motivations, both psychological and financial, don't completely invalidate the enterprise, but just as the historical Jesus is of little account without the larger forces that drive the questions attached to him, so is it also with other, smaller figures such as Carrier.

[Kishkumen]

Yes, on Kish's point, we can't get too caught up on evidence for ancient history, because it's not there. And yes, granted, we simply just take for granted, as assumption, that when people get mentioned, they were there. Jesus is a different case, though. There is a reason to evaluate whether characters in history really existed or not. There's a reason why people reject the historicity of Osiris, and Adam. Jesus, as we hear about him, is simply a mythologized character, no matter how we slice it. If there were a Jesus behind the myth where was he and who was he? No one really knows. We guess, we assume...and there's some safety in that. But that's a pile of assumptions, that may mean there really was no Jesus anyway.

Let's get serious, its bad reasoning to dismiss qualified scholarship because we want to impugn the character of someone, attribute poor motives to that person, and continually straw man his/her position to claim the appearance of victory. That's boring.

Of course, so many atheists do exactly that with regard to Jesus scholarship. They impugn the scholarship, the character of the scholar, their motives, and then call it a day. Just like our old friends the Mopologists. The biases are real, sure. They are for Carrier as well.

My principle point of disagreement with you is that the cases of Osiris and Jesus are fundamentally different. Osiris is so far detached from a specific historical context as a human being, if he was ever considered such, that he is of little evidentiary value as a human historical actor. Jesus, while problematic, is actually so well entwined in his historical context that he offers a magnificent set of data points for other discussions of human life and culture in Jesus' time. Taking Jesus out of that data set is a big net loss. We understand Jesus' time and subsequent time much better with Jesus in the equation as an actual person. The literal truth of religious claims regarding Jesus is wholly unimportant for those conversations, and they should not be allowed to push out the productive historical conversations that can be had, so long as people don't reject one of the most significant historical developments of the time on the grounds that Jesus was only a myth anyway.

[Manetho]

I have no issue with people just following the majority. But doing so does not provide a good argument. it does not defeat a minority held position. It amounts to something more along the lines of "i don't want to think that way". And that's just not how this should work.

No. My argument is the same as it was at the beginning: each of those explanations is possible, but each is also more complex and less probable than the majority viewpoint. And all these complex explanations need to be true in order for Jesus to have been purely mythical. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that a real human was the starting point for the Jesus of Christianity.

[dastardly stem]

Yes, on Kish's point, we can't get too caught up on evidence for ancient history, because it's not there. And yes, granted, we simply just take for granted, as assumption, that when people get mentioned, they were there. Jesus is a different case, though. There is a reason to evaluate whether characters in history really existed or not. There's a reason why people reject the historicity of Osiris, and Adam. Jesus, as we hear about him, is simply a mythologized character, no matter how we slice it. If there were a Jesus behind the myth where was he and who was he? No one really knows. We guess, we assume...and there's some safety in that. But that's a pile of assumptions, that may mean there really was no Jesus anyway.

Let's get serious, its bad reasoning to dismiss qualified scholarship because we want to impugn the character of someone, attribute poor motives to that person, and continually straw man his/her position to claim the appearance of victory. That's boring.

Of course, so many atheists do exactly that with regard to Jesus scholarship. They impugn the scholarship, the character of the scholar, their motives, and then call it a day. Just like our old friends the Mopologists. The biases are real, sure. They are for Carrier as well.

My principle point of disagreement with you is that the cases of Osiris and Jesus are fundamentally different. Osiris is so far detached from a specific historical context as a human being, if he was ever considered such, that he is of little evidentiary value as a human historical actor. Jesus, while problematic, is actually so well entwined in his historical context that he offers a magnificent set of data points for other discussions of human life and culture in Jesus' time. Taking Jesus out of that data set is a big net loss. We understand Jesus' time and subsequent time much better with Jesus in the equation as an actual person. The literal truth of religious claims regarding Jesus is wholly unimportant for those conversations, and they should not be allowed to push out the productive historical conversations that can be had, so long as people don't reject one of the most significant historical developments of the time on the grounds that Jesus was only a myth anyway.

Its a good point with regard to the Jesus/Osiris comparison, sure. And it's completely relevant and pertinent. I don't think it's a slam dunk, they shouldn't ever be considered similar in any way, position. Because as it turns out they end up in a reference class together, as mythologized characters. That's just a fact, at this point.

But I question whether there's a loss of any kind in evaluating the data and arriving at the conclusion that Jesus likely didn't live a mortal life. The time and subsequent time doesn't change whether Jesus actually lived or not. The religion nor the religious claims of the time don't change. And I don't see anyone pushing out any conversation except those who are opposed to mysticism.

[dastardly stem]

No. My argument is the same as it was at the beginning: each of those explanations is possible, but each is also more complex and less probable than the majority viewpoint. And all these complex explanations need to be true in order for Jesus to have been purely mythical. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that a real human was the starting point for the Jesus of Christianity.

While I disagree, for some of the reasons detailed, I very much appreciate your consideration, Manetho. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Sorry I came back so harsh in the last post.

[Kishkumen]

Its a good point with regard to the Jesus/Osiris comparison, sure. And it's completely relevant and pertinent. I don't think it's a slam dunk, they shouldn't ever be considered similar in any way, position. Because as it turns out they end up in a reference class together, as mythologized characters. That's just a fact, at this point.

But I question whether there's a loss of any kind in evaluating the data and arriving at the conclusion that Jesus likely didn't live a mortal life. The time and subsequent time doesn't change whether Jesus actually lived or not. The religion nor the religious claims of the time don't change. And I don't see anyone pushing out any conversation except those who are opposed to mysticism.

Well, I am not opposed to mysticism, and I am not really opposed to most forms of mythicism. I am only opposed to what I view to be bad methodology in ancient history. For me the intimate and inextricable interaction of myth and historical persons is one of the most fascinating aspects of Mediterranean antiquity. Everyone who said anything about others around them was generally providing a highly rhetorical and artistic take on the person that was not expected to be slavishly tethered to the "facts." That phenomenon so thoroughly permeated the literate cultures of the time that the insistence that Jesus the myth is divorced somehow from a historical person is unlikely in the extreme. When Cicero takes down Catiline or Marc Antony, is he representing them factually? The question is simplistic and poorly framed. Likewise with Jesus. It would be stupid to say that myth has nothing to do with how Jesus is presented. At the same time it would be daft to say that no historical Jesus existed. What we see over and over again in that age is historical people presented to us in highly rhetorical, artistic, and mythicizing terms. To expect differently in Jesus' case is blinkered.

Go through all of our ancient sources in this general era--the Hellenistic Age through the High Roman Empire--and you will see how widespread this is. It is the air these people breathed. Now tell me that Jesus is the lone exception, and I will show you what is statistically unlikely to be the case.

[huckelberry]

Well, I am not opposed to mysticism, and I am not really opposed to most forms of mythicism. I am only opposed to what I view to be bad methodology in ancient history. For me the intimate and inextricable interaction of myth and historical persons is one of the most fascinating aspects of Mediterranean antiquity. Everyone who said anything about others around them was generally providing a highly rhetorical and artistic take on the person that was not expected to be slavishly tethered to the "facts." That phenomenon so thoroughly permeated the literate cultures of the time that the insistence that Jesus the myth is divorced somehow from a historical person is unlikely in the extreme. When Cicero takes down Catiline or Marc Antony, is he representing them factually? The question is simplistic and poorly framed. Likewise with Jesus. It would be stupid to say that myth has nothing to do with how Jesus is presented. At the same time it would be daft to say that no historical Jesus existed. What we see over and over again in that age is historical people presented to us in highly rhetorical, artistic, and mythicizing terms. To expect differently in Jesus' case is blinkered.

Go through all of our ancient sources in this general era--the Hellenistic Age through the High Roman Empire--and you will see how widespread this is. It is the air these people breathed. Now tell me that Jesus is the lone exception, and I will show you what is statistically unlikely to be the case.

Kishkumen, this is a clear thoughtful statement that should be kept in mind in considering the gospels.I will try and not forget it.

It is perhaps odd,or not, that I can think of the gospels as having a variety of uncertain doubtful details. I can also just read them without worrying about that , take the message as presented.