The Jesus myth Part I

[Manetho]

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.

Dredging this up from the last time I posted it, which was dredging it up from Symmachus's post on the old board...

The way people invent a story in one culture will not be the same that people invent it in another, so if we are claiming it was invented in culture X, the manner of its invention should match what we know of story invention in that culture. The process of inventing a story has to happen within certain acceptable parameters in order to establish a threshold of plausibility for that story. Those parameters and that threshold of plausibility are culturally specific. For example, if somebody today were going to invent a story set in antiquity, they would know that, in order to establish its plausibility, they would have to get the historical context right. If there were anachronisms, that would be a sign that it was made up and it would lose its plausibility. This is why I can't accept the Book of Mormon. But for many early readers of that book, the horizon of plausibility was very different, and for modern Mormons it's different still (basically, you just have to feel good about it while reading it).

Story invention in antiquity also had thresholds of plausibility that any story-inventor had to meet. Lack of anachronisms was not one of them. For one thing, the conception of massive cultural change over time is not something that existed as it does for us, and history was viewed cyclically rather than linearly, so anachronism did not pose problems and thus did not diminish plausibility. As a result, modern historians can detect when a story might be invented in an otherwise sober text from antiquity because they can track the anachronisms (Ammianus Marcellinus's Gallic excursus is a great example). We should therefore expect a made up story to contain a host of anachronisms, but the gospels contain very few and these are not wild anachronisms (which actually helps us date them relative to each other and relative to other events). Adding accurate historical details would not help meet the threshold of plausibility, since anachronism was irrelevant.

But a more fundamental fact is that these invented stories were derived deductively from a given set of premises. In that sense, there often were valid reasons for thinking gods had a human past, even if not sound reasons (to steal your distinction again). And even when, say, ancient historians are asserting that their account is true, they almost never use any kind of evidence in our sense to support that, and when they dispute with other historians, they do so like Plutarch does: they make some kind of moral or ethical argument, not an evidence-based one. There is nothing at all like a recourse to a body of evidence, the way historiography has functioned since the mid 19th century. That is an important point because, in order for the mythicist scenario to be plausible, they have to explain why the story-inventors went through all the trouble to compile and include accurate information for the first century context, especially when that information would have been out of context in the second century and in some cases quite inaccessible. Their scenario implies that whoever made up these stories was trying to meet a a modern threshold of probability.

So saying "made up" is not quite accurate; rather these stories were "thought up." Euhemerism (following the traditional definition of that philosophical position and not the idiosyncratic and tautological one used by Carrier) is basically deductive in that sense. So, for example, etymology, or more accurately pseudo-etymology, was a very common way of Euhemerizing divine beings or heroes (but always in the distant past). If the name of the divine or heroic being was similar to some mundane word, it was perfectly plausible that there was some connection. Etiological stories were another common one. The first chapters of Genesis are teeming with this stuff. When we turn to the Gospels, though, the only place we have material like that is in the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, both of which are the most obviously made up stories about Jesus—and both of which contain the most easily identifiable anachronisms. That's not a coincidence. But then both the anachronisms and the usual modes of story-invention diminish, and meanwhile the testable historical details increase in frequency. The way that it was invented matters, and a story invented to humanize a god in antiquity should have at the very least some etymology, etiology, and anachronism.

It is very curious that these elements (and others) are so little represented in the gospels, then, but on the other hand the amount of accurate detail in the gospels is astonishing for an invented text: about how the Roman government worked in Palestine in first century (which was radically different from how it worked in the second century!), the sheer existence of the synoptic problem, the nuances of the Jewish communities in the first century that didn't exist in the second—one could go on, but the basic point must be grasped that the amount and level of detail in the gospels would mean, if Carrier is right, there must have been at least one researcher (probably more) with a curiously anachronistic post-enlightenment sense of historiography who was endowed with philological skills unparalleled in antiquity. The closest match I can think is someone like Jerome, but even he lacks the kind of modern methodological rigor that this would require, not to mention a devotion to accuracy that most ancient historians didn't even have, let alone somebody of less than elite education.

[dastardly stem]

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.

Thanks. I got his point. I'm struggling to see the difference. If its ok to think real people who get mythologized have their mythologizing happening within living memory, then what is the difference if there never was that person who lived but a life was created for that mythical person? I honestly cannot see the significance. Why would that require precedence? It could simply be that the Christians decided to do their myths differently.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks. I got his point. I'm struggling to see the difference. If its ok to think real people who get mythologized have their mythologizing happening within living memory, then what is the difference if there never was that person who lived but a life was created for that mythical person? I honestly cannot see the significance. Why would that require precedence? It could simply be that the Christians decided to do their myths differently.

If you struggle to see the difference in the abstract, it does not change the fact that we are lacking ancient parallels for the made up mythical person thrown into a pseudo-historical biography with accurate details you and other mythicists see in Jesus. If you are interested in evidence, where is your evidence of that happening other than in this one case?

[dastardly stem]

Thanks for bringing the Symmachus quote, Manetho. I like it. I'm not sure the context of it, so I'm wondering what is meant in some cases.

That is an important point because, in order for the mythicist scenario to be plausible, they have to explain why the story-inventors went through all the trouble to compile and include accurate information for the first century context, especially when that information would have been out of context in the second century and in some cases quite inaccessible. Their scenario implies that whoever made up these stories was trying to meet a a modern threshold of probability.

This is as much an argument against mythicism it seems as it is against a mythologized historicity position. That is if Jesus' story was mythologized at all, then, apparently, someone has to explain why the story-inventors/exaggerators "went through all the trouble to compile and include accurate information for the first century context". I'm not following his "especially when that information would have been out of context in the second century..." since neither side takes the gospels as if they were written in the second century. I have no idea why a god who was supposedly said to be a man, and had stories made up about him, would expected to be any more accurate than a story about a god who was never a man but was made into one in the story told about him.

It is very curious that these elements (and others) are so little represented in the gospels, then, but on the other hand the amount of accurate detail in the gospels is astonishing for an invented text: about how the Roman government worked in Palestine in first century (which was radically different from how it worked in the second century!), the sheer existence of the synoptic problem, the nuances of the Jewish communities in the first century that didn't exist in the second—one could go on, but the basic point must be grasped that the amount and level of detail in the gospels would mean, if Carrier is right, there must have been at least one researcher (probably more) with a curiously anachronistic post-enlightenment sense of historiography who was endowed with philological skills unparalleled in antiquity. The closest match I can think is someone like Jerome, but even he lacks the kind of modern methodological rigor that this would require, not to mention a devotion to accuracy that most ancient historians didn't even have, let alone somebody of less than elite education.

Again I am curious why he thinks the mythicism position would suggest the gospels were written in the second century. I don't know whose saying that. It seems to me, anyone who thinks that Jesus' story was mythologized is convicted on Symmachus' take. He seems to be saying that mythologized accounts of gods would normally lack the type of detail and knowledge of that which we get from the gospels. I mean, that'd be odd, but apparently I'm missing some context.

[dastardly stem]

If you struggle to see the difference in the abstract, it does not change the fact that we are lacking ancient parallels for the made up mythical person thrown into a pseudo-historical biography with accurate details you and other mythicists see in Jesus. If you are interested in evidence, where is your evidence of that happening other than in this one case?

Well I'll look more into this. That you and Manetho think there ought to be some precedent, makes me wonder enough. I'll see what I can find. I'll also see what I can find in regards to this being a conclusive need of some sort.

[Manetho]

Again I am curious why he thinks the mythicism position would suggest the gospels were written in the second century. I don't know whose saying that. It seems to me, anyone who thinks that Jesus' story was mythologized is convicted on Symmachus' take. He seems to be saying that mythologized accounts of gods would normally lack the type of detail and knowledge of that which we get from the gospels. I mean, that'd be odd, but apparently I'm missing some context.

The context was a discussion of Carrier's ideas, mainly between Analytics and Symmachus, in 2015. Symmachus, who was basing himself on posts on Carrier's blog and on Analytics's summary of Carrier's arguments, was under the impression that Carrier believed the gospels were written in the second century. I don't know whether that was accurate (Carrier may have changed his position since then). But the fundamental point is that the gospels do not look or behave the way one would expect of fictitious stories from the ancient world. Inserting unnecessary historical details and actively avoiding anachronisms is the way a modern historical novelist behaves, but it is not the way ancient people saw history.

If mythicists assert that Christianity did something different from what everyone else in the ancient world (as far as we can tell) did, they need to explain the how and the why. They can't simply assert it.

[dastardly stem]

The context was a discussion of Carrier's ideas, mainly between Analytics and Symmachus, in 2015. Symmachus, who was basing himself on posts on Carrier's blog and on Analytics's summary of Carrier's arguments, was under the impression that Carrier believed the gospels were written in the second century. I don't know whether that was accurate (Carrier may have changed his position since then). But the fundamental point is that the gospels do not look or behave the way one would expect of fictitious stories from the ancient world. Inserting unnecessary historical details and actively avoiding anachronisms is the way a modern historical novelist behaves, but it is not the way ancient people saw history.

He was way off if he thought Carrier's position was the gospels were written in the second century. As far as I recall he never held that position. I'd wonder why Symmachus was arguing a straw man? Oh well.

He may be right about mythologies inserting historical details. But again, that argues against the mainstream position of the gospel stories of Jesus are myth. I mean he may be more out there then Carrier on that.

If mythicists assert that Christianity did something different from what everyone else in the ancient world (as far as we can tell) did, they need to explain the how and the why. They can't simply assert it.

Why? I mean it all happened. Why must someone else have done exactly what the early Christians did before we can say it really happened? I don't think it makes sense. But as I said to Kish...I'll see what I can find.

[Kishkumen]

That is if Jesus' story was mythologized at all, then, apparently, someone has to explain why the story-inventors/exaggerators "went through all the trouble to compile and include accurate information for the first century context". I'm not following his "especially when that information would have been out of context in the second century..."

Why do they? They just had a story of a person who actually lived, and the story was embellished by people who had a certain point to make about that person. Just as the people who claimed Apollo was the father of Augustus had a certain point to make in adding that to his story. It took no extra effort to tell the story of the man who lived a certain life using the facts they had at hand.

since neither side takes the gospels as if they were written in the second century. I have no idea why a god who was supposedly said to be a man, and had stories made up about him, would expected to be any more accurate than a story about a god who was never a man but was made into one in the story told about him.

Well, neither side except for Robert M. Price, the mythicist who dates everything late. And there is also the problem of dating papyri.

Look, Symmachus clearly explained this. Ancient writers weren't familiar with the standards of evidence that modern readers are looking for. They gave evidence without a thought because those data points were simply part of the story they were telling. Ergo, they were not capable of thinking, "I better stick in some juicy fact so that my readers will buy this story." That is what Symmachus is getting at, and he is correct. He is brilliant, in fact.

Again I am curious why he thinks the mythicism position would suggest the gospels were written in the second century. I don't know whose saying that. It seems to me, anyone who thinks that Jesus' story was mythologized is convicted on Symmachus' take. He seems to be saying that mythologized accounts of gods would normally lack the type of detail and knowledge of that which we get from the gospels. I mean, that'd be odd, but apparently I'm missing some context.

What he is saying is that conditions in the second century changed such that it is unlikely the story would have originated that late. And some people do date some of the gospels in the second century.

[honorentheos]

Focusing the discussion on one item in the hopes it helps.

Why? I mean it all happened. Why must someone else have done exactly what the early Christians did before we can say it really happened?

What you are comparing here are two competing theories. One is the theory that Jesus was a historic person whose story was mythologized into his being a god, or the son of god, within the lifetimes of the people who may have known him. The other is the theory that someone or a group of someones invented the story of this divine, cosmic being set in a near-present timeframe, and then reworked the story to be more grounded with this being eventually becoming a historic person rather than always a cosmic entity.

Of the two theories, one has parallels from that time and place while the other would be novel.

Of the two theories, one aligns with the chronology of evolution found in the authorship of the texts about this person while the other runs opposite this chronology (Mark = most mundane, John = Jesus is the Word).

The first is what one would expect if one found later believers worked to eliminate earthly aspects of this person's life from the text (removing references to Jesus being part of a biological family unit whose mother gave birth to other children) while the later would demand ignoring that this occured, assuming the same position as these late copyists that Jesus couldn't have a family because Mary remained a virgin her whole life and Jesus was part of a Holy Family rather than a biological one. The difference being what we have then must be a sloppy attempt to slip them into the story later on rather than a marginal scrub job.

Etc, etc, etc.

At some point one of these two theories stops being of equal weight compared to the other.

[huckelberry]

Honorentheos focus on the matter of two competing theories. After all even if specific evidences of Jesus are thinner than desired he is an explanation for the existence of the Christian religion. A no Jesus view needs an alternative explanation. What I understand the alternative view to be is that there was a group of people following speculation about some passages in Enoch about a angelic divine figure descending from the upper heavens to lower heavens to be sacrificed. Only later away from Jerusalem did people misunderstand and start thinking of a human Jesus figure.

Some consideration press forward at least in my mind. Without a Jesus going about spreading the message how did this idea turn into a movement? It sounds like a small book club. How could this book club seem important enough to attract persecution such as Paul confesses to? After all there were all sorts of Jewish variations and no tribunal forcing dogmatic unity which might not like Enoch speculation. Not only who was spreading the word of the Enoch event who was giving it a voice and message?

Honorentheos, you might be interested in considering James as the real source and original driving force. How workable would you see that possibility?(would the real Jesus stand up? .... James?)

////////////adding in the morning.
I think it is reasonable to consider the story of Jesus being raised from the dead as evidence that he was a mortal human who is capable of dying. This evidence of course does not require that you believe he actually rose from the dead but recognizes that the belief energized the movement. Is there something else besides this belief which would be a basis for the movements existence?

Stem, back a bit we differed on the role of king in the Jesus story. I can see your point that it is there but I was considering that it is there is a strange manner. Herod was king, the Jewish people had no power to make Jesus king. The Romans had that power. Yet it is true that Jesus is said to have spoken about a coming kingdom. The opening of Romans was brought up looking at the phrase, descended from David according to the flesh. There is uncertainty whether that was intended to mean ,jew, not a foreigner or was it a king suggestion. Paul says that Jesus is special because raised from the dead. Paul would not be creating this idea new.It is the accepted basis of the ongoing movement he once persecuted then joined.