The Jesus myth Part I

[honorentheos]

To put it as succinctly as I can, what seems to be missing here is any effort to investigate the history to understand the myth. Instead, the effort of the mythicist argument appears to be to attack the myth to dismiss the history. It's difficult to take that seriously if no attempt to point to something past the myth gives enough pause to get that to click.

[dastardly stem]

Very good questions. You live in the era after it occurred, looking at the results. To investigate the historical Jesus requires investigating the 1st century and not the Catholic mythology.

As Mormons we we are more likely to accept the Catholic narrative as the one we know because Mormonism is also based on a claim of being the authentic heir to the authority given Peter in that narrative. When the Catholic church claims to be the rightful priesthood lineage through Peter, Mormonism pushes it's glasses up on it's nose and say, "Well, actually, that can't be true because there was an apostasy from the true teachings of Jesus and a corruption of the church he established. So WE are the true continuation of that priesthood lineage and the restoration of this original, correct Jesus-founded church."

But have you spent time learning about what boring old history has to say about this period? Because I never see the mythicist arguments engaging with that any more than I see Mormons engaging the foundation of the so-called restoration being based on 19th century ideas about the original church rather than what can be uncovers about the 1st century teachings and beliefs coming out of the region. It doesn't engage the historic context of the rebellions among the Jews against Roman occupation. It isn't engaging with the manuscript evidence seeking to uncover the text behind the New Testament as we have it.

It seems mostly interested in dismissing Sunday School lessons as fairy tales for whatever personal reasons one may have for wanting to only engage it deep enough one can see the later myths for what they are and call it case closed.

I'm personally happy to consider anything you want to put on the table for consideration. That is if a mythicist position misses the context and thus historic elements from the first century, then let's consider what that may be. From my readings it certainly does engage the history and context of the time. But, as I said, I'm happy to consider otherwise.

You read the New Testament today and see passing comments about James in the writings of Paul and decided this doesn't have any bearing on the argument Paul was both dismissive of James' authority and teachings as unenlightened compared to his romanized, more universal message and church building was based on?

That would be germane to the point. Sure. Paul seems rather dismissive of James and Peter. One would think if Peter and/or James actually knew Jesus in the flesh and were appointed by Jesus while he was mortal, Paul would be less dismissive of them. But, he's not. And if they really did live with him, walked with him and all of that, you'd think Paul would make mention of that. But instead he's really dismissive of them.

All of which is filtered through the New Testament as we have it today as far as you are engaging it? And you don't see much of an argument there?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Perhaps that's a good reason to read something about the 1st century context from the perspective of a historically attempt to recover history from the mythologizing of it rather than just attacking the myth to dismiss the history? Maybe.

Perhaps. Do we have any evidence that Jesus lived from the 1st century? I've attempted to lay out where this discussion has taken us so far. I don't see much in the way of evidence. Do you know of any?

[dastardly stem]

To put it as succinctly as I can, what seems to be missing here is any effort to investigate the history to understand the myth. Instead, the effort of the mythicist argument appears to be to attack the myth to dismiss the history. It's difficult to take that seriously if no attempt to point to something past the myth gives enough pause to get that to click.

To be fair, we haven't gotten very far along. And in my mind, nothings been decided or resolved here. If you have something pertinent to talk about, I'm more than happy to consider it.

[Kishkumen]

To put it as succinctly as I can, what seems to be missing here is any effort to investigate the history to understand the myth. Instead, the effort of the mythicist argument appears to be to attack the myth to dismiss the history. It's difficult to take that seriously if no attempt to point to something past the myth gives enough pause to get that to click.

Very nicely put. Begin with the history. Only by understanding the period, the place, the ancient texts, etc., can we begin to weigh the evidence effectively.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps. Do we have any evidence that Jesus lived from the 1st century? I've attempted to lay out where this discussion has taken us so far. I don't see much in the way of evidence. Do you know of any?

Here are some fair questions in response to your question:

What do you think evidence is?

Do you think it is proof?

Or do you think it is data that can be used in an argument?

[honorentheos]

I'm personally happy to consider anything you want to put on the table for consideration. That is if a mythicist position misses the context and thus historic elements from the first century, then let's consider what that may be. From my readings it certainly does engage the history and context of the time. But, as I said, I'm happy to consider otherwise.

To be frank,.this is a discussion topic where I think a person who is interested will find the books on the topic that isn't engaging with or based in the mythisicm claims, and spend time in the plain history or they aren't as interested as they think they are. Kish mentioned a book by Ehrman upthread. I think most books on second temple Judaism would plant seeds of inquiry that would establish a context different than the Mormon-based understanding of the time period that by itself would illuminate issues with many premises you've shared coming from Carrier.

Sure. Paul seems rather dismissive of James and Peter. One would think if Peter and/or James actually knew Jesus in the flesh and were appointed by Jesus while he was mortal, Paul would be less dismissive of them. But, he's not. And if they really did live with him, walked with him and all of that, you'd think Paul would make mention of that. But instead he's really dismissive of them.

That's a bad reading of what I said. Paul is dismissive of James' views and teachings and he manipulates Peter. But he used them to build his own claims on which he established gentile churches throughout the Mediterranean. You don't have to look far in the present day to see people doing the very same thing, making claims of being the more correct and refined outgrowth that steals from something that came before effectively dismissing it's legitimacy while claiming it for its own. Mormonism does this very thing with Christianity. Politics is saturated in this process. It's all around you.

All of which is filtered through the New Testament as we have it today as far as you are engaging it? And you don't see much of an argument there?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The New Testament as we have it is a product of time that reflects certain choices and beliefs, most of which are founded in the myth you are engaging in dismissing rather than engaging the underlying history. Understanding that is critical to understanding why so far you don't seem to be interested in engaging with the actual historical Jesus so much as the Catholic mythology about him. But claiming that is all that's needed to dismiss Jesus as based on a historical person.

Perhaps that's a good reason to read something about the 1st century context from the perspective of a historically attempt to recover history from the mythologizing of it rather than just attacking the myth to dismiss the history? Maybe.

Perhaps. Do we have any evidence that Jesus lived from the 1st century? I've attempted to lay out where this discussion has taken us so far. I don't see much in the way of evidence. Do you know of any?

The fact we are talking about it eliminates the claim there is zero evidence else we wouldn't be. Otherwise, the mythology you are engaging is also evidence. After that, you seem pretty vested in the conclusion there wasn't a historical Jesus. And in the scheme of your life who is to say it matters or isn't for the best you hold to that rod? I don't know.

[honorentheos]

To put it as succinctly as I can, what seems to be missing here is any effort to investigate the history to understand the myth. Instead, the effort of the mythicist argument appears to be to attack the myth to dismiss the history. It's difficult to take that seriously if no attempt to point to something past the myth gives enough pause to get that to click.

Very nicely put. Begin with the history. Only by understanding the period, the place, the ancient texts, etc., can we begin to weigh the evidence effectively.

Thank you, Kishkumen. I was trying to put my finger on why I find the discussion as chasing it's tail and this came to me after reading through the thread. So my hat is off to you and others for illuminating this for me.

[dastardly stem]

Perhaps. Do we have any evidence that Jesus lived from the 1st century? I've attempted to lay out where this discussion has taken us so far. I don't see much in the way of evidence. Do you know of any?

Here are some fair questions in response to your question:

What do you think evidence is?

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do you think it is proof?

no. Not necessarily.

Or do you think it is data that can be used in an argument?

Most def.

[Kishkumen]

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

OK, so why do you say we don't have any evidence from the first century that Jesus lived?

[dastardly stem]

OK, so why do you say we don't have any evidence from the first century that Jesus lived?

That's not my position. I'm asking for evidence to evaluate. Is it good evidence or convincing evidence? We can do the same for King Arthur, or Attila the Hun. What evidence do we have to suggest they lived? Is it good or convincing?

As far as I can see, the evidence for Jesus having lived is weak and is not very convincing. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise. If after summing it up and evaluating it, there is ample reason to think Jesus lived, great. If its the other way around. Great. I have no issue with that either. I'm just interested in the topic of Jesus. And will happily accept I'm wrong, as anything convincing comes along.