The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

Both Marx and Darwin were products and people of their times. Darwinism is an obsolete term, as is Marxism excep for the few die hards who hink he was a secular Jesus to the world.

Darwin racist in same way? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!!!! What's next, claiming the Pope is Catholic?

The question would be who were the European intellectuals from the time of Darwin who were not racist.

Actually, the question under discussion is the extent to which the Jesus myth theory is fundamentally anti-Jewish.

 

[No Robots]

The other question, the extent to which the theory evolution is fundamentally racist, is perhaps better pursued in my thread "Toward a Judeo-Marxist biology."

 

[steve_bank]

As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.

 

[dbz]

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.

The name Judas Iscariot as literally meaning "Jerusalem Jew" is coherent with Tom Dykstra's argument that the Gospel of Mark is a polemic against the Torah observant (hence "Jewish") leaders of the Christian Jerusalem church who appear as the figures: Peter; James/Jacob; and John in the Markan gospel. And that the name Judas Iscariot is a reference to the Torah observant Christians still supporting said Jerusalem church. Dykstra writes,

Mark was written after a conflict had developed between Paul and the Jerusalem Christian leadership under the leadership of the "pillars" Peter, James, and John. For the [Markan] Gospel's original readers, the picture of obtuse, glory-seeking, slothful disciples couldn't help but bolster the authority of the one Apostle who was not so characterized [i.e. Paul]. . . . in the terms of Mark's own day and Paul's perspective, the real traitors are among the Christian Jewish leadership, not the non-Christian Jews. The name Judas ("Jew") corresponds so well to Paul's view that his opponents were traitors to the cross of Christ by being zealots for Jewish traditions [e.g. being Torah observant], that it is reasonable to suppose Mark deliberately named the betrayer Judas for that reason.[45]

N.B. Greek: Κωνσταντινούπολις Kōnstantinoupolis: Given the fact that Constantinople came to be commonly referred to as just Polis (ἡ Πόλις) 'the City' (by Constantinopolitans and provincial Byzantines alike). By similar process applied to Jerusalem; it was then nicknamed 'Iscariot' see MacDonald, Dennis R. (2014). The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-3053-8. pp. 11–12. "I prefer to understand ... Iscariot as a truncation of the Greek ... in which case Iscariot would mean “into-the-city.” A parallel to this linguistic move lies behind our word Istanbul...".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.

Per what some in this thread have claimed you forgot to add a line that says "Therefore Jesus mythicists hate Jews and love Hitler and the Nazis."

 

[Swammerdami]

All we have for evidence is texts that have survived through the filter of the centuries-long Christian-biased, historicist-biased copying machine and recovered documents that date back to decades or centuries after Jesus is claimed to have been executed. So all arguments in favor of historicity are always going to attract skepticism. If only we could find graffiti left over from the followers of Jesus that was created during his alleged period of existence. We have such evidence for Pontius Pilate, but not Jesus, his alleged witnesses, or his execution at the hands of Jewish or Roman authorities. Crucifixion was a terrible punishment that was reserved to make a point for serious crimes, not necessarily minor religious cult movements, so, if he did exist, he must have done something to merit such extraordinary cruelty. Are there records of other minor cult leaders that were crucified? Did he lead an armed revolt against Roman rule like Spartacus did?

Crucifixion was primarily used against insurrectionists, but apparently these were plentiful in Judaea, resentful of Roman rule. Google agrees with my readings, e.g.

In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus.

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect? Obviously there should be far more evidence for the Governor than for one of dozens or hundreds of vagabond preachers. (There was a colorful preacher outside my college campus but I can't remember his name. If I could, I doubt if Google has heard of him.)

There does seem to be agreement — tell me if I'm wrong — that there were "Chrestians" somehow affiliated with Paul in Rome circa 60 AD, yet the evidence for them is quite meager.


Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for a Jew in the Jewish homeland? Was his given name Yeshu(a)? The names "Jesus the Anointed" and "Jesus the Good" are near-homonyms (in Greek), easily conflated; yet the mythicists make this distinction an important part of their case?

 

[dbz]

Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for anyone in the Jewish homeland?

• Jewish homeland?

Jesus conducts much of his ministry in Galilee

, which was then known at the time as a region that contained a mixed Jewish and Gentile population. Whereas Jerusalem, located in the preeminent region of Jewish identity, is the place where the Jews reject Jesus.[126]

Cappelletti, Silvia (2007). "Non-Jewish Authors on Galilee". In Zangenberg, J.; Attridge, H. W.; Martin, D.B.. Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 69–82. ISBN 978-3-16-149044-6.

Strabo is aware that Galilee had a mixed population . . . The sources seem to ignore the Hellenistic history of Galilee, its relations first with the Seleucid kingdom and then with the Hasmoneans. (p. 80. )

Chancey, Mark A. (2005). Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-44798-0.

[Herod Antipas’s] rebuilding of Sepphoris and establishment of Tiberias allowed the [Roman] client king to demonstrate his enthusiasm for the mingling of Greek, Roman, and local cultures that was taking place throughout the Levant. . . . [exposure to pagan cities and their Greek and local deities and demigods] stood only a very few miles away, such as [at] Scythopolis and Hippos, and many Galileans would have known something of the pagan rituals that took place there. (pp. 221–222.)

The Book of Isaiah anticipates that emissaries will preach the word of God to the Gentiles and that a savior figure will restore the Jews that were disenfranchised by the Assyrian captivity

and who still continue to live among the Gentiles in regions like Galilee.[119][120]

Galilee and Perea​

were Incorporated into "Greater Judea" i.e. Provincia Ivdaea, in 44 CE, which already incorporated the regions of Samaria, Idumea, and the eponymous Judea. The regional name Perea is used by Josephus (c. 75 CE) and Pliny the Elder (c. 75 CE) in their geographic descriptions of the regions within the province.

The Markan author shows a great awareness and interest in the Graeco-Roman city territories surrounding Galilee: Gerasa (Mk 5.1); Tyre and Sidon (7.24-31); Caesarea Philippi (8.27) and the Decapolis (5.20; 7.31), and has Jesus himself traveling into these areas.

In the Markan story, geography demarcates Jew from Gentile. While at the Gallilee region, Jesus receives Gentiles from the surrounding regions—one of which is Transjordan (Mark 3:8). The Markan author names the Transjordan region by using the same term found in the LXX Book of Isaiah—péran toú Iordánou; not Perea. Notably the Markan author never uses the specific contemporary name for the east bank territory of Herod Antipas, i.e. Perea. The LXX Book of Isaiah term for the Transjordan region is repeated in Mark 10:1, therefore the traditional view of the Perean ministry, which holds that Jesus did not travel beyond the Perean territorial region of Herod Antipas is not supported by the Markan text. It appears that the usage of the term Transjordan in Mark 10:1 is a reference to the Decapolis and other Gentile regions such that Jesus—enroute to Jerusalem—is teaching both Jews and Gentiles per the same literary East/West axis presented previously for the Sea of Galilee ministry.

Tabor, James (1 March 2022). "The "Strange" Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference". Biblical Archaeology Society.

...a young man–notice–not an angel–tells them:

“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

And there the Gospel simply ends!

 

[No Robots]

As I understand the general evolution of Christianity.

1. A small Jewish heretic sect emerges. Followers were Jewish.
2. It evolved and spread to Gentiles loosing the Jewish requirements.
3. Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.
4. Gentile 'Christians; reject Jews and the anti Jewish element begins. Jews killed Christ.

It is not hard to see. Mormonism co-opted 19th century Christianity, added to it, and madeit their own.

Henry 8th co-opted Catholicism to suit his needs turning on Catholics in England.

The evolution from Jewish prophet to what we call Christianity is a common process.

The gospels present the Jerusalem Jews as the bad guys and Jesus is betrayed by a Jew Judas.

Per what some in this thread have claimed you forgot to add a line that says "Therefore Jesus mythicists hate Jews and love Hitler and the Nazis."

steve_bank acknowledges "the Jewish prophet we call Jesus." This is something that mythicists refuse to do. This refusal leads to seeking the origin of Christianity outside Judaism. And it is for this reason that mythicism is inherently anti-Jewish.

 

[Copernicus]

All we have for evidence is texts that have survived through the filter of the centuries-long Christian-biased, historicist-biased copying machine and recovered documents that date back to decades or centuries after Jesus is claimed to have been executed. So all arguments in favor of historicity are always going to attract skepticism. If only we could find graffiti left over from the followers of Jesus that was created during his alleged period of existence. We have such evidence for Pontius Pilate, but not Jesus, his alleged witnesses, or his execution at the hands of Jewish or Roman authorities. Crucifixion was a terrible punishment that was reserved to make a point for serious crimes, not necessarily minor religious cult movements, so, if he did exist, he must have done something to merit such extraordinary cruelty. Are there records of other minor cult leaders that were crucified? Did he lead an armed revolt against Roman rule like Spartacus did?

Crucifixion was primarily used against insurrectionists, but apparently these were plentiful in Judaea, resentful of Roman rule. Google agrees with my readings, e.g.

In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus.

So what did Jesus do to get himself crucified like the ones in the rebellion that Varus had crucified? As I said, crucifixion was usually done to make a point--to terrorize violent rebels, for example. If Jesus was such a minor figure--a vagabond preacher with a small following--what merited that extreme form of punishment?

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect? Obviously there should be far more evidence for the Governor than for one of dozens or hundreds of vagabond preachers. (There was a colorful preacher outside my college campus but I can't remember his name. If I could, I doubt if Google has heard of him.)

There does seem to be agreement — tell me if I'm wrong — that there were "Chrestians" somehow affiliated with Paul in Rome circa 60 AD, yet the evidence for them is quite meager.


Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for a Jew in the Jewish homeland? Was his given name Yeshu(a)? The names "Jesus the Anointed" and "Jesus the Good" are near-homonyms (in Greek), easily conflated; yet the mythicists make this distinction an important part of their case?

I don't see the rest of what you posted as serious evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. I don't think that it is even as important to most mythicists as you seem to think it is.

 

[Swammerdami]

Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for anyone in the Jewish homeland?

In the Markan story, . . .Jesus . . .
. . . in Mark 10:1 is a reference to the Decapolis and other Gentile regions such that Jesus—enroute to Jerusalem—is teaching both Jews and Gentiles per the same literary East/West axis presented previously for the Sea of Galilee ministry.
. . .
...a young man–notice–not an angel–tells them:

“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

And there the Gospel simply ends!

I'm a simple layman asking simple questions. Was "Chrestus"'s given name Yeshu? It is a yes/no question. I see many references to "Jesus" in your response. Should I assume the answer is Yes?

That the Markan narrative — written a full century after Paul's ministry in some mythicists' view — has minimal mention of any Resurrection supports historicity. I've explained this claim before; if it still isn't obvious, I give up.

All we have for evidence is texts that have survived through the filter of the centuries-long Christian-biased, historicist-biased copying machine and recovered documents that date back to decades or centuries after Jesus is claimed to have been executed. So all arguments in favor of historicity are always going to attract skepticism. If only we could find graffiti left over from the followers of Jesus that was created during his alleged period of existence. We have such evidence for Pontius Pilate, but not Jesus, his alleged witnesses, or his execution at the hands of Jewish or Roman authorities. Crucifixion was a terrible punishment that was reserved to make a point for serious crimes, not necessarily minor religious cult movements, so, if he did exist, he must have done something to merit such extraordinary cruelty. Are there records of other minor cult leaders that were crucified? Did he lead an armed revolt against Roman rule like Spartacus did?

Crucifixion was primarily used against insurrectionists, but apparently these were plentiful in Judaea, resentful of Roman rule. Google agrees with my readings, e.g.

In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus.

So what did Jesus do to get himself crucified like the ones in the rebellion that Varus had crucified? As I said, crucifixion was usually done to make a point--to terrorize violent rebels, for example. If Jesus was such a minor figure--a vagabond preacher with a small following--what merited that extreme form of punishment?

YOU claimed that crucifixion was rare. Do you acknowledge that this claim was false? If thousands were crucified, why would a single one merit special attention? As for the alleged reason, have YOU read the Gospels?

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Claiming to be King in land belonging to Caesar is almost the definition of insurrection.

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect? Obviously there should be far more evidence for the Governor than for one of dozens or hundreds of vagabond preachers. (There was a colorful preacher outside my college campus but I can't remember his name. If I could, I doubt if Google has heard of him.)

There does seem to be agreement — tell me if I'm wrong — that there were "Chrestians" somehow affiliated with Paul in Rome circa 60 AD, yet the evidence for them is quite meager.


Speaking of Chrest/Chrestos, am I correct that this is Greek, and therefore an unlikely name for a Jew in the Jewish homeland? Was his given name Yeshu(a)? The names "Jesus the Anointed" and "Jesus the Good" are near-homonyms (in Greek), easily conflated; yet the mythicists make this distinction an important part of their case?

I don't see the rest of what you posted as serious evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. I don't think that it is even as important to most mythicists as you seem to think it is.

The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.

I have repeatedly asked for a detailed explanation — in mythicists' view — of the "James brother of the Lord" mentions by Paul and Josephus, and of the Chrestians/Christians in Nero's Rome. If anyone can come up with a scenario that strikes me as plausible, I will revise my estimate of historicity's probability.

Do you want to try, Copernicus? I am looking for BREVITY and clarity. I am NOT asking for argumentation etc.; I just want simple plausible answers to simple questions.

So far, ONLY Jarhyn has come through with a specific mythicist model. AFAICT, his "mythicist" scenario is almost EXACTLY the same as my "historicity" scenario. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed to think James was Chrestos' brother. He hasn't specifically said that Chrestos' given name was Jesus, though both Paul and Josephus seem to think so.


ETA: And to repeat myself for the 11th time, I do NOT think Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. I simply think that the odds favor that the 1st-century Christian cults worshiped a Galilean named Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Period. Was this heavily mythologized? Probably. But with MANY crucifixees to choose from (or beheadees like John the Baptist) why bother to invent a fictitious one?

 

[dbz]

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect?

• Zip, Zero, Zilch for the Minimal Historicity Jesus—who was an insignificant, unnoticed failure. And we should also expect Zip, Zero, Zilch for the hundreds of other characters, who contributed their exploits, that were crafted into the undying truth of the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels!

The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.

• Occam's Razor supports the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels, NOT the Minimal Historicity Jesus you are fixated on!

Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

—Richard Carrier[5]

 

[Swammerdami]

As for evidence, a key question is: How much evidence would one expect?

• Zip, Zero, Zilch for the Minimal Historicity Jesus—who was an insignificant, unnoticed failure. And we should also expect Zip, Zero, Zilch for the hundreds of other characters, who contributed their exploits, that were crafted into the undying truth of the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels!

Fine. Explain this to Copernicus.

The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.

• Occam's Razor supports the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels, NOT the Minimal Historicity Jesus you are fixated on!

Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

—Richard Carrier[5]

Who here is "clinging so desperately"?
This quote by Carrier tells us nothing about historicity, but only what we already knew: That Richard Carrier is a pretentious "scholar" so desperate to defend his atheism that he jumps from one non sequitur to another.


By the way, your "Minimal Jesus" is a vapid caricature. The man inspired major cult(s). Even atheists like myself can be curious why.

 

[dbz]

Who here is "clinging so desperately"?

A Bayesian analysis of Who here is "clinging so desperately" can calculate the probability of that!

Lataster's scholarly peer reviewed work ISBN:9789004408784, "interprets" Richard Carrier’s exhaustive (ca. 600 pages) peer reviewed scholarly case for mythicism (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).

Godfrey, Neil (16 November 2014). "Ten Elements of Christian Origin". Vridar.

First, he defines the points that will identify a historical Jesus and those that will be signs of a mythical one.

Second, he set out 48 elements that make up all the background information that needs to be considered when examining the evidence for Jesus.

Third, only then does he address the range of evidence itself and the ability of the alternative hypotheses to account for it.

The HISTORICAL 48 elements in Carrier's book: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt​

Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)

Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66) Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise. (b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature. (c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah. (b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist. (c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)

Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Element 6. The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)

Element 7. (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age. (b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)

Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages. (b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)

Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

Element 10. Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion. Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christians belioeved they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism. Element 13: Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly one in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning (see Element 14)

Element 14: Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolised a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.

Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices). Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth. Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures. Element 18: Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled by his death (and thereby replacing) the two greatest Jewish religious sacrifices - Yom Kippur and Passover.

Element 19: The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus.

Element 20: The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles bu required them to convert to Judaism.

Element 21: Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels throughout the 1st century.

Element 22: We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE (or possibly even as late as 110 CE), and the leadership of the Christian church had been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period.

Background to Christianity - The Context

Element 23: The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 CE bringing the center of the holy land under direct control of the Roman government, ending sovereignity over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

Element 24: (a) Owing to their vastly greater resources ( in minerals, money and manpower) and superior technical ability (in the training, equipping and supplying of their armies) the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy.

Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.

Element 26: For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24): the reason God withheld their fulfilment (and instead allowed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g. Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7).

Element 27: (a) The temple at Jerusalem most the central focus of most Jewish messianic hope (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26), and as long as the Romans remained in power, the would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple. Accordingly (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and it's personnel.

Element 28: A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum to the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.

Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them. Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies. Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea. Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings. Element 33: In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also (obviously) influenced by several Jewish sects (see, in general, Elements 1-5), and can be understood only in this context too.

Element 34: Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers (see Chapter3, Section 1), with the first layer of 'heaven' often called the 'firmament' (being the foundation holding up all the others) and consisting of all the air beneath the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere travelled by the moon).

Element 35: Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless.

Element 36: Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sub-lunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need no descend and mingle with corruption.

Element 37: The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits (pneuma or psychai) and demons (daimones, or daimonia), throughout the whole space, who controlled the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.

Element 38: (a) In this same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.

Element 39: (a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.

Element 40: [T]he Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such as way. Element 41: The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture (1 Enoch). Element 42: There is a parallel tradition of a perfect and eternal celestial High Priest named Melchizidek, which means in Hebrew 'Righteous King'. We have already seen that a celestial Jesus was already called Righteous and King by some pre-Christian Jews.

Element 43: (a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.

Element 44: In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true. Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenom in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.

Element 46: Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well; and one of these hero-types was widely revered among pagans: the pre-Christian narratives of the life and death of Socrates and Aesop.

Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus conforms, is the apotheosis, or 'ascension to godhood' tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus.

Element 48: Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine king', what I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type.

 

[Swammerdami]

Who here is "clinging so desperately"?

A Bayesian analysis of Who here is "clinging so desperately" can calculate the probability of that!

Lataster's scholarly peer reviewed work ISBN:9789004408784, "interprets" Richard Carrier’s exhaustive (ca. 600 pages) peer reviewed scholarly case for mythicism (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).

I have been a peer reviewer and witnessed peer reviewing. Peer reviews are often NOT as authoritative as some laymen assume.

Scholars cite other scholars, and vast digraphs of cross-citations emerge. IIRC, there is software to find "Circle Jerks" in those digraphs. Is such software online? What can we learn about Carrier's circle-jerk cluster?


I notice you added massively to this post AFTER clicking 'Post' and after I clicked Quote.

But I am not interested in long litanies of mythicist talking-points. I'd prefer 4 simple SINGLE-MODEL answers to the 4 simple questions I posted long ago. Are you up for that, dbz?

 

[dbz]

Peer reviews are often NOT as authoritative as some laymen assume.

Scholars cite other scholars, and vast digraphs of cross-citations emerge. IIRC, there is software to find "Circle Jerks" in those digraphs. Is such software online? What can we learn about Carrier's circle-jerk cluster?

• Carrier (15 March 2021). "[. . .] and the Function of Peer Review in History". Richard Carrier Blogs.

If you are going to challenge a historical consensus built on such a vast and multiply-corroborated network of evidence, you had better damn well have the goods. And peer reviewers are responsible for ensuring that. I’ve discussed how peer review works in the field of history before. Their principal role is to “pre-vet” a paper or book, saving the rest of us the laborious time of doing so. Passing peer review thus signals a work is worth our time reading, considering, and engaging with, because it meets the minimal standards for that. Passing peer review thus does not indicate the conclusion a paper or book argues is “true”; peer reviewers are not tasked with nixing anything they disagree with. They are only tasked with answering basic questions like “are there any obvious errors of reasoning or method,” “is enough evidence presented to establish the conclusions reached,” “are there any obvious omissions or misrepresentations of fact,” “is this author familiar with and engaging with established knowledge and positions in the subject,” and “does this thesis comport with well-known background facts.” For examples of general peer review standards see the PLOS Guide and the Wiley Guide. Everything they say applies to history manuscripts as much as any in science.

Peer review is often blind (single or double), meaning the author is usually not told who the peer reviewers are, and often the peer reviewers are not told who the author is (that information will be stripped from the headline, for example). Blinding peer review is not necessary, but it does allow reviewers to be more honest without community or professional backlash, and it can forestall some biased outcomes (resulting from professional grudges for example). A serious journal, one whose peer review process is considered of high quality, will only use reviewers who have relevant PhDs and publication histories (meaning, they have gotten their own work in the same or closely related topics published through peer review). And it is standard to have at least two, operating independently of each other, as such duplication significantly reduces the risk and impact of bias and error.

And finally, it is very common for an academic work to be rejected (often for trivial reasons, like word length or a belief the work is redundant or not subject-suited to the journal or publisher), then revised and resubmitted to the same or other journals or publishers, going through multiple venues until accepted. However, this will not operate merely as forum shopping. With every peer review (resulting in a rejection or acceptance), there will be a peer reviewer’s report (in fact, more than one), and if it contains any critique of the work (reasons for rejection, or conditions for acceptance, or even just recommendations that fall short of requirements), this will be provided to the author. Who can then use that information to improve the work (or even have to). Which is one of the principal benefits of peer review as a process: anything that passes peer review (at any respectable journal or publisher), you know has gone through this process, and therefore will be of higher quality—it has already faced and been revised in light of expert criticism. This makes peer reviewed work substantially more reliable than “just anything published on the internet,” or through a non-academic publisher, or one of dubious credentials (like the many fraudulent and shoddy academic journals there are out there: on which, see “How Do You Know a Paper Is Legit?”, “How Do You Know a Journal Is Legitimate?”, and “Scholarly Articles: How Can I Tell?”).

This does not mean work that isn’t peer reviewed is unreliable; just that it requires more critical vetting from the reader themselves, which means it is safe to dismiss it if you don’t have or want to burn time on doing that before trusting it, or lack the needed skills and professional knowledge to do it (and no one who does has already done this and made available their critical report or assessment). Peer review is like a check mark that says “that preliminary vetting by real experts has been done and it passed.”

 

[dbz]

I'd prefer 4 simple SINGLE-MODEL answers to the 4 simple questions I posted long ago. Are you up for that, dbz?

1. Document D) is dismissed as evidence for the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels per normative historical methodology on valid/usable evidence.
2. Document C) is dismissed as evidence for the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels per normative historical methodology on valid/usable evidence.
3. Document B) is dismissed as evidence for the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels per normative historical methodology on valid/usable evidence.
4. Document A) is valid/usable evidence per normative historical methodology. However there is scant data for the historical Chrestus attested by Paul, other than attesting to his historical existence.

Ok, how do these documents attest your:

...man [who] inspired major cult(s). [That] Even atheists like myself can be curious why.

 

[Copernicus]

...
So what did Jesus do to get himself crucified like the ones in the rebellion that Varus had crucified? As I said, crucifixion was usually done to make a point--to terrorize violent rebels, for example. If Jesus was such a minor figure--a vagabond preacher with a small following--what merited that extreme form of punishment?

YOU claimed that crucifixion was rare. Do you acknowledge that this claim was false? If thousands were crucified, why would a single one merit special attention?

I said that it was an extraordinary type of punishment designed to make a point. To explain the fact that there is no evidence to corroborate the existence of Jesus that dated back to the time at which he was supposed to have lived, those arguing for a historical Jesus like to claim that he was just a relatively minor figure. Why would such an obscure individual be crucified? The records we have of crucifixion involve extraordinary acts of rebellion. It isn't clear how many people Varus crucified, since such numbers were often exaggerated, but it was in response to a major act of rebellion. How did a minor cult leader like Jesus fit into that category?

As for the alleged reason, have YOU read the Gospels?

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Claiming to be King in land belonging to Caesar is almost the definition of insurrection.

A doubtful claim, especially since the gospels do not all agree on the details or even timing of the crucifixion. Normally, violent rebels would face the harshest punishment, but Jesus is portrayed as a peaceful pacifist who had a rather insignificant following. It wasn't considered very noteworthy at the time. It isn't clear in the gospel why Romans would have considered him a threat, when there were far more violent rebels to worry about. I could imagine him maybe being stoned to death by locals as a heretic, but that was hardly a matter to be thought of as rebellion against Rome. Two thieves were allegedly crucified alongside Jesus, but theft was not normally punished by crucifixion, which was reserved for more serious crimes.

...

I don't see the rest of what you posted as serious evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. I don't think that it is even as important to most mythicists as you seem to think it is.

The ONLY grounds for historicity I have claimed is Occam's Razor.

I think we disagree on the credibility of the textual evidence that you've been providing. A lot of the content is obviously made up and full of inconsistencies. Maybe Paul was telling the truth in his letters about his experiences in Palestine. Maybe he was embellishing or having a false memory. Maybe he was just lying to talk up his own credentials as the head of a ministry. He wouldn't have been the first cult leader in the history of the world to make stuff up to impress followers.

I have repeatedly asked for a detailed explanation — in mythicists' view — of the "James brother of the Lord" mentions by Paul and Josephus, and of the Chrestians/Christians in Nero's Rome. If anyone can come up with a scenario that strikes me as plausible, I will revise my estimate of historicity's probability.

Do you want to try, Copernicus? I am looking for BREVITY and clarity. I am NOT asking for argumentation etc.; I just want simple plausible answers to simple questions.

I'm sorry, but I have a dwindling number of heartbeats left in my body for such a major undertaking. I think that dbz, in particular, has done a very good job of answering many of your questions.

So far, ONLY Jarhyn has come through with a specific mythicist model. AFAICT, his "mythicist" scenario is almost EXACTLY the same as my "historicity" scenario. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed to think James was Chrestos' brother. He hasn't specifically said that Chrestos' given name was Jesus, though both Paul and Josephus seem to think so.

If you are looking for details on the "Chrestos" issue, you need to go to people who actually have expertise in Greek and the texts containing those references. Jahryn has made some good points, but he can only repeat things that he has read and found credible in the literature. Carrier has written impressively on that subject, and I certainly cannot do as good a job as dbz at quoting materials from his various blogs and books.

ETA: And to repeat myself for the 11th time, I do NOT think Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. I simply think that the odds favor that the 1st-century Christian cults worshiped a Galilean named Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Period. Was this heavily mythologized? Probably. But with MANY crucifixees to choose from (or beheadees like John the Baptist) why bother to invent a fictitious one?

I have not argued that you believe such nonsense, only that you consider the juxtaposition of such claims to other claims in the same texts that you do believe. Just because something looks like it isn't obvious mythology, that doesn't that you should find it a reliable indicator of something that really happened.

 

[Swammerdami]

...
So what did Jesus do to get himself crucified like the ones in the rebellion that Varus had crucified? As I said, crucifixion was usually done to make a point--to terrorize violent rebels, for example. If Jesus was such a minor figure--a vagabond preacher with a small following--what merited that extreme form of punishment?

YOU claimed that crucifixion was rare. Do you acknowledge that this claim was false? If thousands were crucified, why would a single one merit special attention?

Your "case" in this digression is based on an alleged rarity of crucifixion. Josephus among others insists it was the opposite of rare. Who's right? Until you acknowledge or refute that crucifixions were common in 1st century Judaea, this discussion is useless.

Claiming to be King in land belonging to Caesar is almost the definition of insurrection.

A doubtful claim, especially since the gospels do not all agree on the details or even timing of the crucifixion. . . . Two thieves were allegedly crucified alongside Jesus, but theft was not normally punished by crucifixion, which was reserved for more serious crimes.

I thought YOU were the mythicist, but I recognize that the Gospels are mostly fiction, and here you ask them to be treated seriously!

Which parts of the story are true? Jesus causing a disturbance in the temple is likely true because it doesn't fit with the — as you admit — pacifist persona implied elsewhere. Whether this act was "minor" or not misses the point. It was insurrection. The penalty for insurrection was crucifixion.

I have repeatedly asked for a detailed explanation — in mythicists' view — of the "James brother of the Lord" mentions by Paul and Josephus, and of the Chrestians/Christians in Nero's Rome. If anyone can come up with a scenario that strikes me as plausible, I will revise my estimate of historicity's probability.

Do you want to try, Copernicus? I am looking for BREVITY and clarity. I am NOT asking for argumentation etc.; I just want simple plausible answers to simple questions.

I'm sorry, but I have a dwindling number of heartbeats left in my body for such a major undertaking. I think that dbz, in particular, has done a very good job of answering many of your questions.

I cannot make sense of this without assuming you missed my posts explaining what I wanted: Answers (10 words or less each) to each of four trivial questions. NO argumentation; NO cites; NO discussion. Just four very simple answers. (dbz doesn't get it. Do you?)

If you wish, I'll be happy to link to one of the several posts where I explained what I was asking for,

Here, I'll make it even easier for you.

Among the MANY possible myth scenarios, select ONE which is plausible and/or easy to defend and/or easy to describe. If I decide it's a 10% possibility — whatever that means — you win! You don't need to outline the scenario. Just answer these yes/no questions:

1. Were there Chrestians in Rome ca 60 AD?
2. Were there Christians in Rome ca 60 AD?
(3. Were the Chrestians and Christians the same people? Omit this question unless you answered Y/Y to 1/2.)

Paul and Josephus each mention (a) James (b) brother of Jesus (c) who was called Christ.
4. Did James exist?
5. Was his brother named Jesus?

I've broken the Josephus quote into three phrases, some of which might have been Christian propaganda from the 2nd century or later.
6. Was "James" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?
7. Was "brother of Jesus" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?
8. Was "who was called Christ" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?

AGAIN: The answers to some of these questions are uncertain. HOWEVER, if there are valid myth models, THEN there is at least ONE valid myth model!! Choose it

To punctuate the simplicity of what I'm asking for, I will ignore all further posts in this thread until I see a post that consists ONLY of 8 (or 7) words, with each of the words being "Yes" or "No."

 

[Swammerdami]

IF there are valid myth models, THEN there is at least ONE valid myth model.

I HOPE that THIS, at least , is not controversial. But based on what I've seen so far, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dbz]

6. Was "James" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?
7. Was "brother of Jesus" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?
8. Was "who was called Christ" present in the 1st-century Josephus book?

AGAIN: The answers to some of these questions are uncertain.

• Really? Maybe then .. they are not usable evidence in non-apologetic historical reasoning?

n.b. the practice of apologetics operates in most religions.

I want to be spoon-fed!

• What part of the following did you not understand?

Carrier (23 September 2016). “Three Things to Know about New Testament Manuscripts”. Richard Carrier Blogs.

[Per the Jewish Antiquities by Josephus] all extant manuscripts of the Antiquities are copies (of copies of copies of copies…) of the same singular manuscript owned and used by Eusebius at his own Christian library in Caesarea.
[...]
That the entirety of all Josephan scholarship is only trying to reconstruct the text as it was in the single—centuries-late—manuscript held by Eusebius in the early 4th century, and cannot ever reconstruct any version of the text prior (down to and including the original text as known to Josephus in the late 1st century), is an extremely significant thing to realize.