The Jesus myth Part I

[Manetho]

The Gospel of Mark can't be taken as serious history, thus it's terrible evidence. It's a writing by a fanatical believer making a number of fantastic unreliable and magical claims. And since life expectancy was around 48 years, I don't think living memory works. Mark, or whoever really wrote it, would have likely been a child, at best, when Jesus died and never claimed to know Jesus or anyone who knew Jesus anyway. That is in no way comparable to the evidence we have for Alexander or Augustus.

The point is that people in the Roman Mediterranean did not take gods like Osiris or Dionysus, or legendary founding heroes like Hercules or Romulus, out of their vaguely imagined mythic past and set them in a time period that living people could still remember. But they did elevate real people who lived in real historical contexts to divine status. The mainstream (non-Christian) explanation for Jesus is that early Christians elevated Jesus in the same way. In contrast, the mythicist explanation for the Jesus story has no parallels in the ancient Mediterranean, so mythicists have to explain the mechanism by which the mythical Jesus was transferred to the historical setting of Judea in the tenure of Pontius Pilate. I haven't seen them do so.

[dastardly stem]

Stem,

The manuscript texts show evidence of a mythologizing of the person being described rather than an attempt to humanize a myth which you seem to believe.

Great. What evidence do we have for this person having lived?

The text evidence shows an erasure of Jesus being part of a family with biological parents and siblings. You suggest this worked the other direction despite the chronology of the text showing clearly Jesus was becoming more deified as time went on.

That's an interesting point. Why would we think that a mythological figure, who later was given a human life, should not have parents and siblings when that later human life development occurred? THat wouldn't make sense.

The text shows the original Jerusalem-based followers of Jesus did not share the same views as Paul, yet you give Paul priority because you do what New Testament believers do and assume a unified, underlying coherent gospel of sorts.

I'm confused by this accusation. Where did I ever suggest, imply a unified, underlying coherent gospel? I'd agree, many of Pauls' points demonstrate there were many ideas rolling around about what the religion was, taught or should be. I give Paul priority because he is all we have for a source on that very early period of the religion. There are no other sources out there. 1 Clement? Possibly. Hebrews? Likely. But Hebrews, at least mostly, agrees with Paul and vindicates his points.

The Jerusalem church, as it were, was largely Jewish in beliefs and Paul served to erase the very Hebrew nature of what was believed just based on the fragments that survived the attempts to censor the story to paint a picture of a coherent foundation story. Paul's conflicts involve Jewish customs, beliefs about the importance of adhering to the law, and the idea that anyone could be God's favored through faith, in particular in Jesus, rather than obedience and bloodline.

I don't know what else to say than you should read outside of this mythisicm canon and dig into the history that is agnostic about Jesus. Seeing the context, you'll see you are fighting a ghost/myth rather than debating the history itself. And isn't that the point? Yet it's odd to me the stuff you bring over from Carrier never seems to actually engage with the history but instead the Sunday School version of history you should realize from your LDS past isn't actually history.

I've already pointed out I've consider plenty of others. One main point of this thread is to consider whether mythicism works. I honestly can't see how you've addressed anything significant that's been brought up on the question under consideration. That the early cult had diverse ideas? I agree. Some, even in Paul's time may have thought there really was a Jesus who lived as a human. I mean even Paul could have thought that. The problem is there isn't good evidence to suggest there really was. If there is, what is that evidence? People believed? I don't consider that good evidence, admittedly.

[dastardly stem]

The point is that people in the Roman Mediterranean did not take gods like Osiris or Dionysus, or legendary founding heroes like Hercules or Romulus, out of their vaguely imagined mythic past and set them in a time period that living people could still remember. But they did elevate real people who lived in real historical contexts to divine status. The mainstream (non-Christian) explanation for Jesus is that early Christians elevated Jesus in the same way. In contrast, the mythicist explanation for the Jesus story has no parallels in the ancient Mediterranean, so mythicists have to explain the mechanism by which the mythical Jesus was transferred to the historical setting of Judea in the tenure of Pontius Pilate. I haven't seen them do so.

But you're attempting to enforce a brand new element that should have been common to all the savior-god mythemes when you say this. If Jesus had elements that were his own, and not common to the others (like having his story written down closer to his proposed life than others), then I don't think Jesus needs further explanation on those. They did the Jesus myth differently...not a big deal. I don't think that's how it should work. We have zero accounts of anyone who claims to have known Jesus. We don't' counter that paucity of evidence by claiming any other proposed theory better disprove his existence. We go from what's more likely on such stipulations to an attempt at certainty.

The points I'd reiterate is, there are no contemporary accounts of his life, no evidence contemporary to his life, and the stories told about him long after he would have lived, are mythologized accounts of a god which contains many parallels to many others before him. Those others were mythical characters. If Jesus was an exception, then what is the evidence for him having lived?

[Manetho]

The points I'd reiterate is, there are no contemporary accounts of his life, no evidence contemporary to his life, and the stories told about him long after he would have lived, are mythologized accounts of a god which contains many parallels to many others before him.

He is not a god in the earliest stories about him. Only the gospel of John makes him a god. Mark contains a few spectacular miracles, but most of his miracles are actually faith healings and expulsions of demons. Considering that faith healers exist even today, a faith healer is a long way from a mythical god. The original version of Mark doesn't even show Jesus's resurrection; it ends at 16:8. That you could still say this tells me you're still misunderstanding the texts, because you're still thinking of the Jesus that most Christians are brought up to believe in, who is a conflation of the Jesus of all four gospels.

Those others were mythical characters. If Jesus was an exception, then what is the evidence for him having lived?

You have repeatedly been told what the evidence is. Stop talking as if none of it counts. The conventional explanation for the origin of Christianity explains why Paul says Jesus was a fleshly descendant of David born to a woman: because he was a real person who was claimed to have messianic status and thus had to be claimed to be a descendant of David. It explains why Josephus seemingly mentions him and the execution of his brother: because Jesus existed and his brother got executed. It explains why the gospels contain so many details that are accurate for the time period: because they're based on events that actually happened in that time period. It explains how the miracle stories were attached to him: because miracle stories were a widespread method of asserting the authority of a human in the Roman Mediterranean, a method that was growing more common, or at least more visible in the literary record, at the exact time the gospels were written down. And it explains why there is no unambiguous evidence for the belief in a purely mythical Jesus: because no such belief existed.

In contrast, the mythicist hypothesis doesn't explain the why the gospels have such a specific setting, doesn't explain how the belief in a mythical Jesus disappeared, and has to contrive entirely independent explanations for the passages in Paul and Josephus that support Jesus's historicity.

It doesn't look to me like you're weighing these hypotheses against each other to determine which one better explains the evidence. You're just looking at a collection of stories you no longer believe in, declaring "Looks like it's all a myth to me! Prove me wrong!" and then rejecting the evidence you're offered, because you have an entirely unreasonable standard of proof for the existence of a peasant preacher from the boondocks of the Roman Empire.

[dastardly stem]

He is not a god in the earliest stories about him. Only the gospel of John makes him a god. Mark contains a few spectacular miracles, but most of his miracles are actually faith healings and expulsions of demons. The original version of Mark doesn't even show his resurrection; it ends at 16:8. That you could still say this tells me you're still misunderstanding the texts, because you're still thinking of the Jesus that most Christians are brought up to believe in, who is a conflation of the Jesus of all four gospels.

Are you saying when Mark opens by saying Jesus is the Son of God and continues the reference throughout, that doesn't mean anything in regards to being divine? What about when he calls himself Son of Man? "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."

You have repeatedly been told what the evidence is. Stop talking as if none of it counts.

I've addressed all items that people count as evidence. As I see it, there has been unconvincing evidence in consideration. If there's nothing else, then how do we even seriously conclude Jesus lived a human life? The evidence is really weak.

The conventional explanation for the origin of Christianity explains why Paul says Jesus was a fleshly descendant of David born to a woman: because he was a real person who was claimed to have messianic status and thus had to be claimed to be a descendant of David.

I'm happy however one sees it. As I said saying he was made of hte seed of David hardly argues against a mythicist position. And since it's oddly put, it doesn't really explicitly suggest Jesus lived a human life on earth.

It explains why Josephus seemingly mentions him and the execution of his brother: because Jesus existed and his brother got executed.

Again...this is argued to be a later interpolation. I'm not seeing this as all that significant anyway, because obviously if genuine, he'd had to have copied Paul or someone who mentioned Paul's passage. Who was claiming there was a Jesus the Christ?

It explains why the gospels contain so many details that are accurate for the time period: because they're based on events that actually happened in that time period.

huh? I"m happy to consider this. I must have missed it when it came up.

It explains how the miracle stories were attached to him (because miracle stories were a widespread method of asserting the authority of a human in the Roman Mediterranean, a method that was growing more common, or at least more visible in the literary record, at the exact time the gospels were written down).

I don't see this as evidence. I admit. But I'm open to being convinced. Tim O'Neill's piece doesn't look convincing to me.

And it explains why there is no unambiguous evidence for the belief in a purely mythical Jesus: because no such belief existed.

How do you know that?

In contrast, the mythicist hypothesis doesn't explain the why the gospels have such a specific setting, doesn't explain how the belief in a mythical Jesus disappeared, and has to construct entirely independent explanations for the passages in Paul and Josephus that support Jesus's historicity.

I've already addressed the bother of James comment enough, I think. I don't find it very convincing. That doesn't mean I don't consider it evidence at all, mind you. So your contention that the mythicist position ought to have an explanation for why the gospels have a specific setting sounds interesting. What do you mean? Why should a specific setting mean anything on a mythicist position? Why would a mythicist have to explain how the mythicist position disappeared? It would have disappeared somewhere around the time someone gave us evidence that people believed Jesus really lived.

It doesn't look to me like you're weighing these hypotheses against each other. You're just looking at a collection of stories you no longer believe in, declaring "Looks like it's all a myth to me! Prove me wrong!" and then rejecting the evidence you're offered, because you have an entirely unreasonable standard of proof for the existence of a peasant preacher from the boondocks of the Roman Empire.

I don't find that a fair summary of what's happened to date. I've consider each piece of evidence presented and given, as far as I can tell, reasoned arguments why it's not as strong as evidence as it may seem to be to some. I certainly have not said "looks like its all a myth to me! prove me wrong!" I've laid arguments and ideas out and expect people who disagree to engage with them. If they don't, then I assume they either agree, or do not care enough to engage.

[Manetho]

So your contention that the mythicist position ought to have an explanation for why the gospels have a specific setting sounds interesting. What do you mean? Why should a specific setting mean anything on a mythicist position?

Because people in the ancient Mediterranean did not take mythical figures and put them in extremely specific times and places that were still in living memory. We have no parallel for how that would have worked, if it really is how the Jesus story originated. Mythicists need to explain how and why such a thing happened, if they want to make their case. But they seem content to simply assert it.

Why would a mythicist have to explain how the mythicist position disappeared? It would have disappeared somewhere around the time someone gave us evidence that people believed Jesus really lived.

I'm talking about the purported ancient Jewish tradition that revered a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical Jesus. If such a belief existed at some point, those who assert there was no historical Jesus need to explain why that tradition died out and left no unambiguous evidence of its existence. They fail to do that, too.

[Kishkumen]

Are you saying when Mark opens by saying Jesus is the Son of God and continues the reference throughout, that doesn't mean anything in regards to being divine? What about when he calls himself Son of Man? "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."

So, first of all, "son of God" does not necessarily mean that the person is literally the biological or miraculous offspring of a god. Secondly, "son of man" often simply means "human being"in the gospels and does not refer to some super-being.

The evidence is really weak.

Compared to Alexander the Great or Augustus, yes. Compared to most people who lived in antiquity, it's actually pretty good. If you can say which Roman governor executed a guy, that's pretty good evidence of his historicity. If the evidence for that fits the known historical context pretty well, that's pretty good. If the governor's activities roughly conform to what other sources say about him, then that is even better.

Christians may exaggerate the strength of the historical case for Jesus. Mythicists rush wildly in the other direction to propose a hypothesis that simply doesn't work.

[dastardly stem]

Because people in the ancient Mediterranean did not take mythical figures and put them in extremely specific times and places that were still in living memory. We have no parallel for how that would have worked, if it really is how the Jesus story originated. Mythicists need to explain how and why such a thing happened, if they want to make their case. But they seem content to simply assert it.

This is not a mythicist concern and need not be. Even historicists like Bart Ehrman, whose gotten some mention here, suggests the story of Jesus was mythologized within living memory of Jesus' supposed life time. Why would mythicist need to explain that which both agree upon?

I'm talking about the purported ancient Jewish tradition that revered a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical Jesus. If such a belief existed at some point, those who assert there was no historical Jesus need to explain why that tradition died out and left no unambiguous evidence of its existence. They fail to do that, too.

Of course there is evidence mythicist positions were held by early Christians. I'll work on getting that out next time I post.

[Kishkumen]

Because people in the ancient Mediterranean did not take mythical figures and put them in extremely specific times and places that were still in living memory. We have no parallel for how that would have worked, if it really is how the Jesus story originated. Mythicists need to explain how and why such a thing happened, if they want to make their case. But they seem content to simply assert it.

This is not a mythicist concern and need not be. Even historicists like Bart Ehrman, whose gotten some mention here, suggests the story of Jesus was mythologized within living memory of Jesus' supposed life time. Why would mythicist need to explain that which both agree upon?

I don't think you understand Manetho's question, stem. M is talking about making up a mythical being and then throwing him into a fake historical biography. M is not denying that real historical people's lives come to be embellished with mythical aspects. All of the historically informed people arguing against mythicism know about and acknowledge the latter.

[dastardly stem]

So, first of all, "son of God" does not necessarily mean that the person is literally the biological or miraculous offspring of a god. Secondly, "son of man" often simply means "human being"in the gospels and does not refer to some super-being.

That's fine. I"m not talking what it necessarily means. It seems to point to divinity being applied to Jesus to me. I thought Lord helped that case too.

Compared to Alexander the Great or Augustus, yes. Compared to most people who lived in antiquity, it's actually pretty good. If you can say which Roman governor executed a guy, that's pretty good evidence of his historicity.

If you can say it, that doesn't amount to evidence. That amounts to evidence someone might have thought as much. Let's consider for a moment....

If someone says their god Agbittle was executed by Hitler, does that really suggest we would have evidence that Agbittle really lived? Honestly, I don't think that works. Now, if we had as a list all people executed by Hitler and one popped up as Agbittle or some variation of that name, then we might have something. But a claim does not always suggest its evidence of itself.

If the evidence for that fits the known historical context pretty well, that's pretty good. If the governor's activities roughly conform to what other sources say about him, then that is even better.

How so? If we know Pontius Pilate had many Jews killed in his time, then it's no wonder someone wishing to make up a story about someone decades after Pontius Pilate, also knew Pontius Pilate had many Jews killed. I don't see good evidence here. I see this as just as likely on historicity as I do on mythicism.

Christians may exaggerate the strength of the historical case for Jesus. Mythicists rush wildly in the other direction to propose a hypothesis that simply doesn't work.

Great. I'm trying to see how it doesn't work, if it doesn't.