The Jesus myth Part I

[dastardly stem]

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.

[Kishkumen]

I am in favor of a mythologized Jesus, but I think the evidence of a particular Jesus who was executed by Pontius Pilate is strong enough to conclude he is a historical figure. In other words, the person Jesus is not a fiction.

[drumdude]

I am in favor of a mythologized Jesus, but I think the evidence of a particular Jesus who was executed by Pontius Pilate is strong enough to conclude he is a historical figure. In other words, the person Jesus is not a fiction.

Apologists love to conflate these two.

The fact is that something significant happened 2000 years ago. I think the most likely version of events is the one Bart Ehrman believes in - that Jesus the MAN became more and more mythologized as Jesus the GOD over time. You can see this progression in the gospels themselves.

[Res Ipsa]

We've gone around and around on this issue, Stem, but I think you're the first person that has actually read Carrier's two relevant books. What is it that you found most convincing?

ETA:

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.

I agree with you -- it's silly. It's not like we have lots of data on how fast religions spread. And the spread is due, in significant part, to highly contingent events. What would have happened if Constantine had not adopted Christianity? If Paul hadn't interpreted something as a message from God?

The beginning and spread of Christianity among Jews is pretty understandable to me. They'd been looking for a Messiah to dispense earthly justice, but had been getting the crap kicked out of them over and over again. Then somebody interprets the old prophecy in a new way and says "guys, we've been reading this wrong. Our reward isn't on earth. It's in heaven!

[Philo Sofee]

I am in favor of a mythologized Jesus, but I think the evidence of a particular Jesus who was executed by Pontius Pilate is strong enough to conclude he is a historical figure. In other words, the person Jesus is not a fiction.

In perfect line with this is Dennis R. MacDonald's massive amounts of information that many of the stories in the Gospels and Acts are created using Mimesis, that is imitating the Greek classics of Homer and Vergil. This entirely leaves room for a person named Jesus who actually existed, yet also confirms Carrier that stories are created which are just simply not history, nor are they meant to be. It is not history that is the arbiter for what is truth and true. MacDonald's overall case, with all his materials is quite convincing to me personally. And other scholars who have also contributed to this theme of mimesis and intertextuality (I'm thinking Allison, and Brodie, and Miller and Winn, among others) just adds to the serious probability we are simply not reading history in the New Testament stories. That does not have anything to do with their value. Because they are not history does not mean they are useless and a waste of time.

[Philo Sofee]

We've gone around and around on this issue, Stem, but I think you're the first person that has actually read Carrier's two relevant books. What is it that you found most convincing?

ETA:

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.

I agree with you -- it's silly. It's not like we have lots of data on how fast religions spread. And the spread is due, in significant part, to highly contingent events. What would have happened if Constantine had not adopted Christianity? If Paul hadn't interpreted something as a message from God?

The beginning and spread of Christianity among Jews is pretty understandable to me. They'd been looking for a Messiah to dispense earthly justice, but had been getting the crap kicked out of them over and over again. Then somebody interprets the old prophecy in a new way and says "guys, we've been reading this wrong. Our reward isn't on earth. It's in heaven!

I think an actual reason for the rise and stick-to-it-ivness of Christianity, since it adapted the pagan mysteries, is the new book by Brian C. Maruresku, "The Immortality Key." I thought it was very, very well done, and a screaming update on the actual scientific claims verifying his thesis.

[Res Ipsa]

We've gone around and around on this issue, Stem, but I think you're the first person that has actually read Carrier's two relevant books. What is it that you found most convincing?

ETA:

I agree with you -- it's silly. It's not like we have lots of data on how fast religions spread. And the spread is due, in significant part, to highly contingent events. What would have happened if Constantine had not adopted Christianity? If Paul hadn't interpreted something as a message from God?

The beginning and spread of Christianity among Jews is pretty understandable to me. They'd been looking for a Messiah to dispense earthly justice, but had been getting the crap kicked out of them over and over again. Then somebody interprets the old prophecy in a new way and says "guys, we've been reading this wrong. Our reward isn't on earth. It's in heaven!

I think an actual reason for the rise and stick-to-it-ivness of Christianity, since it adapted the pagan mysteries, is the new book by Brian C. Maruresku, "The Immortality Key." I thought it was very, very well done, and a screaming update on the actual scientific claims verifying his thesis.

Thanks. Sounds interesting.

[Philo Sofee]

I think an actual reason for the rise and stick-to-it-ivness of Christianity, since it adapted the pagan mysteries, is the new book by Brian C. Maruresku, "The Immortality Key." I thought it was very, very well done, and a screaming update on the actual scientific claims verifying his thesis.

Thanks. Sounds interesting.

Sure.
I got so enmeshed in it, I lost all track of time. A rather large book, but NOT small print, and it's a fantastic mystery - detective - travel guide - serious scholarly book, just very fascinating to read. This kid graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Brown University with a degree in Latin, Greek AND Sanskrit! His research and scholarship are seriously quite in depth and amazing. His experiences including GETTING INSIDE the Vatican super secret and impossible to get in hidden library (with permission and an escort of Catholicism who was helping him with his thesis!!!) is just eye popping incredible! Truly a great book. And he found what he was looking for! Seriously. I am in it again for the 2nd time already and I have only had it a week. And there is really new scientific ways of testing his evidence, they have done so, and he is right! Absolutely delicious to see how science has now truly legitimately come to rescue the ancient mysteries, both Greek and Christian ones. Kishkumen is gonna LOVE this book as well. And it isn't expensive.

[Dr Exiled]

I'm of the mind that Jesus probably existed, probably was a preacher/political revolutionary that was crucified by the Romans. Then the myth started and was added upon over time. Looking at what Joseph Smith did with his inventions, one can see how the process might have worked, at least partially. There is a lot of power obtained over others when myth is created and the one creating it strategically inserts her/himself into the myth, as a supposed leader of course. Paul certainly gained power and prestige in making his visionary claims.

[Philo Sofee]

I'm of the mind that Jesus probably existed, probably was a preacher/political revolutionary that was crucified by the Romans. Then the myth started and was added upon over time. Looking at what Joseph Smith did with his inventions, one can see how the process might have worked, at least partially. There is a lot of power obtained over others when myth is created and the one creating it strategically inserts her/himself into the myth, as a supposed leader of course. Paul certainly gained power and prestige in making his visionary claims.

Yes, this jives with MacDonald's research in numerous ways...I lean this way also.