I haven’t posted on this topic in quite a while, mostly because I’ve said what I have to say and haven’t changed my opinions yet. However I’ll re-enter the fray I guess, with a couple of preliminary comments.
First, I am not a “mythicist” in the full-on Carrier sense. Like DBT, I am perfectly happy with the notion of a figure, or figures, possibly even named “Jesus,” as being behind many of the sayings in the Gospels.
Someone must have said them, and I don’t think Mark just made them up. Besides, “Jesus” was quite a common name in first century Judea.
Second, by “myth” I don’t mean simply a story that is false, a lie. I mean “myth” in its full sense of:
Merriam-Webster said:
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
(as “creation myths”).
And:
a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone
especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
Finally, although the Gospels read like reportage at first glance, further examination reveals them to be literary constructions. The (unknown) narrators are omniscient, presenting thoughts and events that an actual reporter could not have known. Add in the obvious occurrences of
midrash and they are revealed to be largely artificial narratives.
Now, to get to your questions:
Swammerdami said:
Please go through this list and tell us which are historic and which fictional: John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James the alleged brother of Jesus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah pbuh, Johnny Appleseed, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Davy Crockett.
I reject the assumption that these are either/or choices. A person can be very alive, or an event could be verifiably documented, and still have mythic meaning attached, using “mythic” of course in its proper definitional scope (see above) and not merely as “fiction.” Reality is more nuanced than simply either/or. That said, from what I know and what I’ve read, my
opinions are:
John the Baptist probably existed, although certain aspects of his career, such as the story of Salome, seem a little more problematic.
Simon Peter is problematic. I believe there may very well have been a “Peter” involved in the Jesus movement, to borrow a phrase from the biblical scholar Burton Mack. Was he originally “Simon” and had his name changed to “Peter” to signify the founding of the church of Jesus? That seems more problematic to me. So, Peter likely, Simon Peter less so.
James the Brother of Jesus: I can well believe there was someone named James (another common name) who was an important figure in the early Jesus movement.
Muhammad: Personally, I wouldn’t speculate, because I don’t know enough about Islam. It would seem likely to me there would be much that is mythic floating around his name, though.
Johnny Appleseed: I remember reading somewhere that there may well have been some kind of historical figure with some resemblance to such a folk hero. Don’t remember enough of what I read to have a worthwhile opinion.
Buddha: Again, I don’t know enough on the topic to have a worthwhile opinion.
Davy Crocket: As someone who has been a Texan for most of my life, I very much have opinions about Davy. There is no doubt that a U.S. Representative named Crocket resigned his political position and travelled to Texas, where he died at the Alamo. As you point out above, though, there is much myth attached to him. I don’t know if the “killed him a bar” story is part of the actual folk history or was invented by Hollywood screen writers. A more interesting question to me is whether he survived the Alamo fight (surrendered) and was executed the next day. That possibility has been raised by an ambiguous narrative in a diary of a Mexican officer. You should have heard the outraged howls of the good citizens of Texas, at least the white ones, when that information came to light. No way was their mythic hero, a central component of the founding myth of Texas, gonna be a surrendering coward. So, again, nuance.
As for your second question:
If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.
This strikes me as a variation of the
“criterion of embarrassment” used by real historians (or actually, exclusively used by New Testament scholars). Why would anyone create an event which embarrasses the believers? Ergo, it must have really happened that way.
In response, I point out that Paul based his whole theology on the debasement of Christ. That was the point of the story, according to Paul. See First Corinthians 1:23-30:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
To conclude this long post, I will point out that scholars have identified different “layers” in the Gospels. For instance, there are the “sayings” of Jesus, similar to those found in the
Gospel of Thomas or
Q. Then there are the teachings – the parables. Then another layer would be the pronouncements of an apocalyptic preacher, and so on. The scholar Burton Mack, in his
Who Wrote the New Testament attributes these layers to different “Jesus communities” who wrote at different times under different circumstances. I highly recommend Mack, whom I have found to be quite persuasive.
So those are my answers to your questions. It’s not simple. It’s not yes/no. Like much of history, it’s nuanced. That’s why I find the subject fascinating. The interplay of reality and myth is a subject that is worth exploring, even (or especially) in its manifestations in our contemporary world.
We DON'T "know." We GUESS. We try to GUESS intelligently.
