The Christ Myth Theory

[Swammerdami]

Jesus (or Joshua) and James (or Jacob) are very common Jewish names, and there are quite a few people named Jesus mentioned in the works of Josephus.

First: Jesus and Joshua (or more precisely their Hebrew equivalents) are NOT the same name. They ARE etymological cousins, much as John and Jonathon are. But Jesuses went by 'Jesus' and Joshuas went by 'Joshua.'

I don't want to get personal but this fictional meme that Jesus and Joshua are the same name (just to expand the set of Jesuses being "amalgamized"?) does NOT do credit to the mythicists arguing here!

Second: Have the mythicists/amalgamists arguing here actually shown us a list of these other Jesuses? I'm not going to do all your work for you, but I recall one Jesus (NOT executed IIRC) sometimes conflated with the Nazarene who thrived nearly a century before the alleged Nazarene, and perhaps one insurrectionist decades later. There are a small number of 1st-century Jesuses mentioned in histories but who were not insurrectionists and not executed.

Thus, this idea that there were lots of Jesuses wandering about easy to conflate with each other may itself be a ... myth!

The entire and complete discussion of the non-theological history of Jesus is simple:

Might have existed. Doesn’t matter in any way whether he did or not. We will never know anyway.

I think there are many people who, while not believing in a supernatural Jesus, are impressed by the devotion he inspired and therefore curious about the real man.

I'm not one of those. I just like a very wide array of puzzles. Word puzzles, math puzzles, logic puzzles; some people call me a "puzzler." I used to troubleshoot broken IBM mainframes — some of those puzzles were quite intricate. (When there were no broken mainframes around, another expert troubleshooter and myself sometimes removed a wire and challenged the other guy to restore it!)

There are LOTS of interesting historical puzzles. Why was Stonehenge erected? What was the source of the Arthur of Camelot myths? Who wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare? Answering none of these questions will affect my life, let alone my spiritual life. I just like puzzles.

As I explore some historical or scientific puzzles, I am often especially intrigued by the obstinacy of some who consider themselves experts. As just one example, there is strong evidence that the Black Death in England (1347-1350) was a DOUBLE whammy: Many English died from bubonic plague, but many died from anthrax. Yet I see that the Wikipedia article on the Black Death has zero mention of anthrax.

How about you, bilby? Do you like puzzles? Do you have an opinion on the Christian vs Chrestian sub-debate?

 

[bilby]

How about you, bilby? Do you like puzzles?

Yes

Do you have an opinion on the Christian vs Chrestian sub-debate?

No, but I do have a meta opinion that it’s a bloody silly debate about nothing of the slightest importance, with zero data available to either side.

I prefer my puzzles to be both interesting and with at least some possibility of being solvable.

 

[dbz]

Jesus (or Joshua) and James (or Jacob) are very common Jewish names, and there are quite a few people named Jesus mentioned in the works of Josephus.

First: Jesus and Joshua (or more precisely their Hebrew equivalents) are NOT the same name. They ARE etymological cousins, much as John and Jonathon are. But Jesuses went by 'Jesus' and Joshuas went by 'Joshua.'

From Biblical Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ (Yĕhōšúa), perhaps from הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ (Hōšḗa) with addition of יהוה‎ (YHWH, “Yahweh”), thus meaning "Yahweh is salvation". See הוֹשִׁיעַ‎ (hōšī́a, “to save”). By cognate a direct equivalent to Jesus via Latin Iēsus and Ancient Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs) from Aramaic יֵשׁוּע‎ (Yēšū́ʿ), akin to Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ‎ (Yēšū́a), a variant of Yĕhōšúa. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament consistently render both Hebrew names Yĕhōšúa (whence Joshua) and Yēšū́a (whence Jeshua) into Koine Greek as Iēsoûs (whence Jesus).

In the authentic letters (epistles) of Paul, it has long been recognized that all the early manuscripts only contain some sort of shorthand or abbreviation. Copies of manuscripts from later centuries spell out names and are at best guesses.

Original Abbr.	Hypothetical	English
ΙΣ	Ἰησοῦς	Jesus

 

[dbz]

Have the mythicists/amalgamists arguing here actually shown us a list of these other Jesuses? I'm not going to do all your work for you, but I recall one Jesus (NOT executed IIRC) sometimes conflated with the Nazarene who thrived nearly a century before the alleged Nazarene, and perhaps one insurrectionist decades later. There are a small number of 1st-century Jesuses mentioned in histories but who were not insurrectionists and not executed.

Have the mythicists/amalgamists arguing here actually shown us a list of these other Jesuses?

• NO, after all, how many Romans mention Hillel or Shammai, the two most famous Jews of the day? And you wonder why they don't list insignificant nobodies put to death! I do not offer any "proof" for this historicity besides Occam's Razor: There were thousands of men named Jesus in every generation of Jews. It was one of the most common Jewish names (it’s actually, in fact, the name Joshua).

 

[Swammerdami]

The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament consistently render both Hebrew names Yĕhōšúa (whence Joshua) and Yēšū́a (whence Jeshua) into Koine Greek as Iēsoûs (whence Jesus).

Okay. I was wrong about the Yeshua/Yehoshua distinction. Or rather, if I understand correctly, Greek transcription might have conflated two slight variants, much as Isabel/Isabella can get conflated. Sorry for this derail which, in any event, is irrelevant to any debate here.

Resolving the Chrestian/Christian discrepancy is much more relevant; and we have yet to hear from the mythicists/amalgamists on that. Am I correct to infer that, in their view, the Pauline letters were doctored sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century to make Paul's travels more "vivid" by "amalgamating" with some other historic sect that by chance had a similar name to the Christians?

 

[dbz]

The Pre-Christian Greek word: Christ​

Musgrave gives μυρόχριστος (myróchristos) in the sense of "anointed" ca. 450BCE

• Musgrave, Samuel, ed (1778). "Cyclops" (in Greek). ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ (Euripidou ta sozomena - Euripides the saved) | Euripides, Quae extant omnia (All things extant). England: OUP|Clarendon Press. p. 3:80.
• Donnegan, James (1842). A New Greek and English Lexicon; principally on the plan of the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider, etc. p. 1070. "Image of p. 1070 at Google Books."

Christ references in Mark​

• You are the Christ” (Peter in 8:29).

• Peter’s Confession (8:29) — Mark begins the Gospel calling Jesus “the Christ” or “the Anointed One” or “the Messiah” but it would take Peter eight whole chapters to figure this out himself (8:29).

• “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’And Jesus said, ‘I am...’” (14:61)

• High Priest & Jesus (14:61) — asks Jesus at his trial whether he is the Christ. Jesus says “I am” and then proceeds to tell about his second coming.

• “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross that we may see and believe” (15:32)

• Mockers (15:32) — at the crucifixion scene, several bystanders who will mock Jesus use his Christological Titles but don’t really mean it.

Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus"​

When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”

—Matthew V. Novenson[11]

In the authentic letters (epistles) of Paul, every reference to Χριστός (Christ) was abbreviated as ΧΣ.[12] Bart Willruth notes:

You ask, “Does Paul never spell out “christos”?
We don’t know. If he did, then some later copyists abbreviated it and no other copyist preserved it. The evidence we have is that ALL copies of old manuscripts, prior to the fourth century, used the abbreviation XS. The overwhelming probability is that Paul’s original manuscripts also used that abbreviation. Later readers and copyists didn’t know the original intent. Some rendered it “chrestos” while others rendered it “christos”. It appears that the earlier interpretation was “chrestos”. In any event, Paul never explained the meaning of his abbreviations and it was left to later users of the text to “divine” his intent, based on their own wishes or expectations.[13]

"Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

1. Paul only used ΧΣ as a name, and not as a title, and never spelled out Christos or Chrestus.
2. Christos is a title, or is perfumed hair oil.
3. Chrestus is a name for a good god or a good slave.

 

[fromderinside]

The Pre-Christian Greek word: Christ​

Musgrave gives μυρόχριστος (myróchristos) in the sense of "anointed" ca. 450BCE

• Musgrave, Samuel, ed (1778). "Cyclops" (in Greek). ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ (Euripidou ta sozomena - Euripides the saved) | Euripides, Quae extant omnia (All things extant). England: OUP|Clarendon Press. p. 3:80.
• Donnegan, James (1842). A New Greek and English Lexicon; principally on the plan of the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider, etc. p. 1070. "Image of p. 1070 at Google Books."

Christ references in Mark​

• You are the Christ” (Peter in 8:29).

• Peter’s Confession (8:29) — Mark begins the Gospel calling Jesus “the Christ” or “the Anointed One” or “the Messiah” but it would take Peter eight whole chapters to figure this out himself (8:29).

• “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’And Jesus said, ‘I am...’” (14:61)

• High Priest & Jesus (14:61) — asks Jesus at his trial whether he is the Christ. Jesus says “I am” and then proceeds to tell about his second coming.

• “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross that we may see and believe” (15:32)

• Mockers (15:32) — at the crucifixion scene, several bystanders who will mock Jesus use his Christological Titles but don’t really mean it.

Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus"​

When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”

—Matthew V. Novenson[11]

In the authentic letters (epistles) of Paul, every reference to Χριστός (Christ) was abbreviated as ΧΣ.[12] Bart Willruth notes:

You ask, “Does Paul never spell out “christos”?
We don’t know. If he did, then some later copyists abbreviated it and no other copyist preserved it. The evidence we have is that ALL copies of old manuscripts, prior to the fourth century, used the abbreviation XS. The overwhelming probability is that Paul’s original manuscripts also used that abbreviation. Later readers and copyists didn’t know the original intent. Some rendered it “chrestos” while others rendered it “christos”. It appears that the earlier interpretation was “chrestos”. In any event, Paul never explained the meaning of his abbreviations and it was left to later users of the text to “divine” his intent, based on their own wishes or expectations.[13]

"Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

1. Paul only used ΧΣ as a name, and not as a title, and never spelled out Christos or Chrestus.
2. Christos is a title, or is perfumed hair oil.
3. Chrestus is a name for a good god or a good slave.

Just got here. A Topic using folk tale source methodologies as reference is, uh, very unimpressive. How about independent empirical research on the topic. As I understand current scholarship we have developed that capability now. Yano actual evidence.

Here is an example of supposed evidence: What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

Several graphs reciting evidence
a: there was person named Jesus Christ,
b: of some reciting writings about JC in the era following his presence,
c: some mention by other about JS,
d: some mention in religious circles at the time of JC,
e: that there was mention of the idea of JC at the time he was supposed to have been alive,

countered by skepticism about material evidence there was a JC

followed by the rat, tat bumpf of not whether he lived and died but rather he died and lived.

So a life and a fiction?

 

[uzersuperman]

Yet Philo says not a word about jesus, christianity nor any of the events described in the new testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "jesus christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

A rather disingenuous argument when you know full well, or would had you read up to this point, that none of your interlocutors are arguing for the historicity of miracles and so forth. And irrelevant in any case, as you still haven't explained why Philo would be expected to write about such things even had he heard about them, to the point that his not mentioning them is proof that they didn't happen. It would not serve any of his interests to repeat such rumors even if he believed them to be true, and he would have had no more reason to assume that said rumors were true than you do.

I agree with your point about historicity and miracles. The miracles can all be reasonably rejected as invented stories, but there can still be some actual truths that made it into the narrative. Regarding Philo, however, it does seem suspicious that he and others wrote about cult movements without mentioning the one that generated such a huge following as to become the state religion of the Empire eventually. If Jesus was such a minor figure, why did all of those stories about him become so popular that an orthodox movement arose to filter out all of the alleged apocrypha? Yet the first that we get anyone writing about the actual life of Jesus is decades after the alleged execution. And we know that the historical record was heavily edited by the religious movement that arose to preserve it. For example, the only record we have of critics like  Celsus is from preserved records of rebuttals to his criticisms by  Origen.

Philo has obviously demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the affairs of Judea during the rule of Pilate, and he does mention various executions that took place under Pilate. Interestingly, however, Philo accuses Pilate of being a cruel and bad ruler, yet in the Gospels Pilate is portrayed as a fair and concerned ruler, who is forced to have Jesus crucified against his own will by the Jewish mobs, quite the opposite of the situation that Philo describes.

While it may or may not have been appropriate for Philo to have mentioned Jesus in this particular writing( On the Embassy to Gaius; Philo), he demonstrates an in depth knowledge of the happenings in Judea under Pilate and a concern for issues of justice and religion. If Jesus existed as described in the Gospels then surely Philo would have known about him. Philo had a personal knowledge of all of the main historical figures in the Gospel stories and a personal interest in the ideas that were later expressed in the Gospels. If Philo had known about Jesus he surely would have written something about him. Instead, however, we see writings from Philo, such as On the Embassy to Gaius, which give no indication that anything special happened in Judea during the time when Jesus was supposedly preaching and was killed according to the Gospels.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Pre-Christian Greek word: Christ​

Christ references in Mark​

Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus"​

"Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

1. Paul only used ΧΣ as a name, and not as a title, and never spelled out Christos or Chrestus.
2. Christos is a title, or is perfumed hair oil.
3. Chrestus is a name for a good god or a good slave.

Is this treatise intended as an answer to my simple question about the Chrestians/Christians in Nero's Rome? Would it be asking too much for an actual answer in your own words using 15 words or less? (In the simplest form of the question, a single word — Yes or No — would suffice.)

Here is an example of supposed evidence: What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
. . .

That summary misses some of my "common-sense" arguments. But it does emphasize one:

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

Christianity soon became a threat to Jewish authorities (Sanhedrin) and then Rome itself at a time when historicity would NOT have been debated: In the mid 1st century the mythical Jesus, if that's what he was, would have been recognized as a fiction. Yet with all the efforts to condemn Christianity there's no evidence (aside from one ambiguous verse in 2 Peter) that Jesus' non-existence was ever raised as an argument against Christianity!

Interestingly, however, Philo accuses Pilate of being a cruel and bad ruler, yet in the Gospels Pilate is portrayed as a fair and concerned ruler, who is forced to have Jesus crucified against his own will by the Jewish mobs, quite the opposite of the situation that Philo describes.

An opinion I've read (and thought to be widely held) is that, with the Jewish nation shattered after 70 AD, Christians saw the Roman Empire as their hope for expansion. Naturally they edited their stories to show Romans in a good light and left Jews to be the villains. No?

 

[dbz]

How about independent empirical research on the topic. As I understand current scholarship we have developed that capability now. Yano actual evidence.

Here is an example of supposed evidence: What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

Gathercole—Carrier
• Gathercole, Simon (14 April 2017). "What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?". The Guardian
‣ Carrier, Richard (19 April 2017). "The Guardian on Jesus: Dear oh dear…". Richard Carrier Blogs.

• Gathercole, Simon (6 December 2018). "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16 (2-3): 183–212. doi

:10.1163/17455197-01602009.
‣ Carrier, Richard (28 February 2019). "The New Gathercole Article on Jesus Certainly Existing". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Conclusion​

As I already noted in Desperately Searching the Epistles for Anything That Attests a Historical Jesus, there just aren’t any passages in the authentic Epistles of Paul that unambiguously attest to a historical Jesus. Everything Gathercole finds is hopelessly unclear as to whether Paul is speaking of an earthly or a cosmic man. In context, none of it is unlikely of him to say on minimal mythicism. And that fact is itself evidence against historicity. A recently lived messianic hero should be a major and central and repeated subject of discussion and description and debate in Paul’s letters. And yet we nowhere find it. Just things known by revelations and scripture.


And yet even arguing a fortiori, taking the best passages as more likely of Paul to write of an earthly than a cosmic savior—as in fact I did in OHJ, something it’s weird that Gathercole never mentions, since surely he should have seen that as bolstering his own case!—I still did not find them strong enough to make the former likely; though I did find them strong enough to keep historicity plausible. What likelihoods does Gathercole deem credible for these passages on either theory? And what arguments does he have to defend those estimates of probability? We’ll never know. Because he is clearly more intent on apologetics than honest argument. That’s why he ignored—and sometimes even appears to lie about—nearly every argument actually made in the only peer reviewed case for mythicism yet published.


And that—that is what has to be done to defend historicity even in peer reviewed journals—is strong evidence there is no honest case for historicity left to be made.

Logical arguments​

• "How to Successfully Argue Jesus Existed (or Anything Else in the World)". Richard Carrier Blogs.
• "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.
• "A Few More Attempts to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.
• Law, Stephen (2011). "Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus". Faith and Philosophy 28 (2): 129–151. doi:10.5840/faithphil20112821. (Available Online)
• Lataster, Raphael (2019). "Defending Jesus Agnosticism". Think 18 (51): 77–91. doi:10.1017/S1477175618000362.

 

[dbz]

That summary misses some of my "common-sense" arguments. But it does emphasize one:

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

Gathercole—Carrier
• Gathercole, Simon (14 April 2017). "What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?". The Guardian
‣ Carrier, Richard (19 April 2017). "The Guardian on Jesus: Dear oh dear…". Richard Carrier Blogs.

First, this is false. Some Jews and even some Christians did question whether Jesus lived. Second, even apart from that, Gathercole’s argument is dishonest (OHJ, pp. 349-56). Because the very period in which the historical Jesus was invented, the 70s to 120s A.D., is when we should hear people challenging that invention. But we are not allowed to hear what anyone said in that period. All criticism of Christianity in that half century was erased from history. Even all debate among Christians in that half century was erased from history. Which is suspicious. But even suspicion aside, we still can’t argue from the silence of documents we don’t have. We don’t know what the critics of a newly minted historical Jesus were saying in that whole human lifetime of Christian history. So we cannot say “there was never any debate” about it. Any debate there had been, was deleted.


By the time we get to the “Jewish Rabbis” and the “Lucian and Celsus” Gathercole is talking about, we are in the second half of the second century, one hundred and fifty years after the time Christ is supposed to have lived. None of those people would have had any way of knowing Jesus didn’t exist. All they had were the Gospels. Which they just assumed were recording myths about an actual man. Because they had no other assumption or information to go on. Well, except the Jewish Rabbis in Babylon. Christians there were telling them that Jesus lived and died a hundred years before Pontius Pilate (OHJ, Ch. 8.1). Evidently, even Christians who insisted Jesus existed couldn’t agree on what century he lived in.


That doesn’t sound like a real historical person to me.

Conclusion​

This is representative of the bankrupt methods and arguments the so-called “consensus” of Jesus’s historicity is based on. False claims and bad logic are spun into, as Gathercole puts it, “abundant historical references” that “leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.” Somehow no historical references, becomes abundant historical references; and late hagiographic myths become histories; and forgeries become evidence; and texts showing some challenged a historical Jesus, becomes “no one” challenged a historical Jesus; and somehow we magically know what existed in entire lifetimes of missing texts discussing the reality of Jesus. And instead of citing the only peer reviewed academic book on the question of the historicity of Jesus published in almost 100 years, Gathercole cites Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman: neither of whom has ever published any peer reviewed book or article on defending the historicity of Jesus.

• As Barak Obama said, “Come on, man.”

 

[Swammerdami]

@dbz; — Some general comments if you want me to read and heed your posts.

* If you want us to read Richard Carrier's words, copy and paste (or rephrase) his ideas. I, for one, won't click to a Carrier link. I've watched and read him, and find him tiresome. I'm sure he has useful and intelligent ideas to offer. Copy and paste BRIEF excerpts.

* Work harder at addressing specific points or questions. I've asked the mythicists to explain the "Chrestus" controversy, which makes little sense to me. I asked a very SPECIFIC question, and repeated it two or three times. You responded with a long report on "Chrestus" which had absolutely nothing to do with my question.

That summary misses some of my "common-sense" arguments. But it does emphasize one:

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

First, this is false. Some Jews and even some Christians did question whether Jesus lived. Second ...

True? Maybe. But "Some Jews and even some Christians" is not very specific. Your claim, if true, would be a major rebuttal to the historicists. Why not give examples? Please note that the value of any such example diminishes quickly with time. Josephus in the 1st century would be your best shot, but he speaks of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." He doesn't seem to doubt Jesus' existence.

Josephus was early enough to know a FEW people who would have known a historic Jesus, if any. Examples much later than Josephus will have little value.

I guess the following quotes are from Carrier. You can edit a QUOTE tag to specify the quotee as I have done here.

But we are not allowed to hear what anyone said in that period. All criticism of Christianity in that half century was erased from history. Even all debate among Christians in that half century was erased from history. Which is suspicious. But even suspicion aside, we still can’t argue from the silence of documents we don’t have. We don’t know what the critics of a newly minted historical Jesus were saying in that whole human lifetime of Christian history. So we cannot say “there was never any debate” about it. Any debate there had been, was deleted.

The quote (not mine) should have added "that we know about." But that goes without saying. The alleged "erasures" may indeed be "suspicious," but they lead us to suspect . . . What, exactly? We all agree that Jesus, fictional or not, was mythologized. That is not what this thread is about.

. . . bankrupt methods and arguments the so-called “consensus” of Jesus’s historicity is based on. False claims and bad logic . . . no historical references, becomes abundant historical references; and late hagiographic myths become histories; and forgeries become evidence; and texts showing some challenged a historical Jesus, becomes “no one” challenged a historical Jesus; and somehow we magically know what existed in entire lifetimes of missing texts discussing the reality of Jesus. . . .
[*]As Barak Obama said, “Come on, man.”

I don't think name-calling will help. But if it does, what name should I call someone who refuses to answer a simple question about the Chrest/Christ confusion?

 

[No Robots]

Here are a couple of pages from Brunner's Our Christ that go into why Jesus is not mentioned by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus.

 

[Copernicus]

Here are a couple of pages from Brunner's Our Christ that go into why Jesus is not mentioned by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus.

It would be more accurate to say that one can imagine reasons why Jesus is not mentioned by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, and one can imagine other reasons, as well. Carrier has made the point that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but lack of expected evidence is a little more important when making an existential claim about history. It is reasonable to expect that there would have been more concrete evidence of a historical figure of such importance than what we have, especially given the fact that religious scripture and popular legendary tales are not usually reliable sources of historical fact. The credibility of historical content in such literature can diminish over time without some kind of corroboration, especially when enormous effort and resources have been devoted to finding it. Another possible explanation for the lack of evidence for existence is also the lack of existence.

 

[dbz]

Here are a couple of pages from Brunner's Our Christ that go into why Jesus is not mentioned by Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus.

Per the question: Why did the contemporary Jewish writers mention nothing whatsoever about a historical Jesus?

The question is answered by Brunner, Constantin (1921). Unser Christus: oder Das Wesen des Genies (in German) and (1990 in English) Rappaport, A. M. (ed.). Our Christ : the revolt of the mystical genius. Translated by Harrison, Graham; Wex, Michael. ISBN 90-232-2412-4.

[The contemporary Jewish writers] were aware of nothing but the insolence of this charlatan, this harlot’s son — if that . . . So the silence of the Jewish writers is understandable. Philo . . . says nothing about him . . . Josephus, born in Jerusalem in 34 A.D. —he too says not a word . . . Christ was entirely a-political. He played no political part and never used the methods of demagogy. Consequently, there was no reason to speak of him in the same terms as Judas the Galilean or Bar Kochba. (p. 275f)

 

[No Robots]

Harry Waton echoes Brunner:

About two thousand years ago, somewhere in a small country and among a small people, a man appeared by the name of Jesus. He was a poor carpenter and an ordinary man; he was not educated at the schools, he did not know of the philosophies of his time, and he had no connections with influential people. This poor carpenter took it into his head the idea that he was called into existence to bring salvation to mankind. What a pipe dream! What intelligent person would listen to him! The scholars, the philosophers and the wise men either ignored him or they ridiculed him with his pipe dreams. And so he went to the poor, the ignorant, fishermen, beggars, the unwashed and the unkempt, and preached to them the gospel of salvation: the kingdom of God is at hand. These poor, ignorant and derelicts of society, who had nothing to lose, listened to Jesus. They did not understand what he was talking to them, but they liked him and they followed him. Suppose the philosophers and the scholars would listen to him, would they see anything in his pipe dreams? They would regard him as crazy and would pay to him and his pipe dreams no attention. Yet what followed? By the fruit ye shall know. Half of the human race, constituting the Christian world, already follow that poor carpenter; and in due time the rest of mankind will follow him. And how strange and wonderful it is that, since Christianity was recognized by Constantine, countless millions of Christians—philosophers, scholars, poets, as well as ordinary men, discovered profound, sublime and divine truths and wisdom in the utterances of Jesus, the poor carpenter— utterances which the philosophers and the scholars despised and rejected. Verily, the stone which the builders despised and rejected became the chief corner stone of modern civilization.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet the poor son of Miriam of faithless marriage was born much later and died much later. They were born and died after Ananus was born and dead.

What makes more sense is that the cult's were born first, grew, shifted interests with the times, and then solidified when Roman interest sparked around a new "cult" classic that made the rounds that amalgamated all the much more relatively recent history about the Jesus cult phenomena into a single story that told the idealized version of what followers attest from their legends that their Messiah had done.

This gets accepted as truth, and maybe 200 years after Chrestus, the wave of junky Jesus cults goes mainstream.

People confuse the amalgamation as an original and older account (perhaps it's presented that way, much like The Princess Bride is...), It's accepted as such.

Fanfics happen, some letters of dubious originality show up, and a religion is born.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously not many among the believer set here.

Even so the 'evidence' for the man who lived being the man who did is completely missing. We get more from over the fence and from Facebook than from 'scholars' of JC.

By comparison Jan 6th Committee has produced more evidence proving the lie of Trump's victory than several hundred years of JC scholarship have proven the lie of JC Christyness, yet the beliefs among Christians are about the same as those among MAGA (Christians?)s. Powerful Demonstration of what mankind is up against when it comes to belief in faeries.

Hope this isn't a thread breaker.

 

[Politesse]

Obviously not many among the believer set here.

Even so the 'evidence' for the man who lived being the man who did is completely missing. We get more from over the fence and from Facebook than from 'scholars' of JC.

By comparison Jan 6th Committee has produced more evidence proving the lie of Trump's victory than several hundred years of JC scholarship have proven the lie of JC Christyness, yet the beliefs among Christians are about the same as those among MAGA (Christians?)s. Powerful Demonstration of what mankind is up against when it comes to belief in faeries.

Hope this isn't a thread breaker.

Why would loudly proclaiming your unsupported opinion break the thread? That is pretty normal behavior on the internet.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously not many among the believer set here.

Even so the 'evidence' for the man who lived being the man who did is completely missing. We get more from over the fence and from Facebook than from 'scholars' of JC.

By comparison Jan 6th Committee has produced more evidence proving the lie of Trump's victory than several hundred years of JC scholarship have proven the lie of JC Christyness, yet the beliefs among Christians are about the same as those among MAGA (Christians?)s. Powerful Demonstration of what mankind is up against when it comes to belief in faeries.

Hope this isn't a thread breaker.

Why would loudly proclaiming your unsupported opinion break the thread? That is pretty normal behavior on the internet.

OK. If it's an unsupported opinion then it breaks the thread. If it is a supported opinion you break the thread. This analysis breaks the thread.

Back to evidence for JC. Sorry about that.