The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

Christians today are psychical equipped to understand the myths they follow?

In my own case, being raised an atheist allowed me to look at the Bible literature from a dispassionate perspective, leaving me open to the kind of rational interpretation Waton and Brunner provide. I believe there will be many more like me.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Paul gets the credt for "de-judaizing?" Judaisms for gentile converts.

Not that I give a rat's ass about de-judaizing something but there is a difference between dejudaizing something and being anti-semitic. Maybe protestants are anti-catholic. That makes sense religiously. But someone secular like myself who is only discussing the merits of religious claims can hardly be said to be doing either, particularly being anti-semitic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Universal male circumcision is the necessary pre-condition for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

You are a christian atheist, a religious term for enlightened humanist. As such I understand your use of religious metaphor. If, however, you honestly believe that to achieve your vision homo sapiens must practice universal male circumcision I'll wager a piece of your brain is not functioning optimally.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A month ago I was about 90% certain that a Jesus from Galilee (probably Nazareth) DID exist, was probably baptized by John the Baptist and WAS crucified under Pontius Pilate, and somehow inspired new cult(s). That was about ALL I did know about Jesus.

Now I am about 95% certain. There is a whole cottage industry of "Mythicists"; but they have been tested in this thread and been found wanting. If all their rhetoric is unable to shake the conclusion Occam's Razor dictates I must follow the Razor.

Some time back I asked how we are to ascertain how a story such as Old Man and the Sea is historical or fictional. I asked this of any historicists willing to chime in. Please provide your methodology. With that methodology I will be able to know whether any such tale, regardless the authorship if even known, regardless whether if claims impossible events, is an historical account with factual eyewitness evidence or not. No one has provided me with that formula.

Therefore you should question your 95% certainty claim as you have nothing to base your 95% on that can be applied to other similar tall tales or not-so-tall tales.

@Swammerdami: Have you ever written fiction? If so, where did you get your ideas?

 

[steve_bank]

Christians today are psychical equipped to understand the myths they follow?

In my own case, being raised an atheist allowed me to look at the Bible literature from a dispassionate perspective, leaving me open to the kind of rational interpretation Waton and Brunner provide. I believe there will be many more like me.

I view all religious literature the same.

Myths, metaphors, and allegories that reflect a culture's values and views of reality.

There was an old Bill Moyer's show that had a panel of atheists and theists talking abut underlying meanings and the psycholgy that can be derived from Genesis..

A common thread among all traditions expressed in differnt ways is the Golden Rule. Treat others as yiu want to be treted.

The biblical stories r are a culture psychology expressed in myths. In the 70s I struggled through Tibetan Buddhism translations. Once I got past the Snskrit terms it sunk in they were ralking about mental sttaes and a practical psychology, and mental health.

All myths and traditions are based on the same human feelings and experinces. From a certain view the Rambo movie chraracterr was on a Homeric journey of sorts, a warrior in the end finding his way back home.

The bible is a few writings that survived. From the Oxford commentary Job was probaly part of a lost set of teaching materials. Some of the bile tales begin with a father to son or teacher to student attitude. I am not familir with it, there is a long history of side teachings along with the Torah.

Back in the 70s it was well known the Divine Light Mission was a fraud. A indian family set a teen uo a sa guru. Yet I met a woman who swore it turned her life around.

If the bible works for you, then good for you.

I really don't know what you are about, but you appearr to be proselytize like Christians do. An observation not an attack.

 

[No Robots]

I really don't know what you are about, but you appearr to be proselytize like Christians do. An observation not an attack.

I'm a natural born enthusiast. The Bible seems to be a positive thing for me to be enthusiastic about.

 

[No Robots]

If, however, you honestly believe that to achieve your vision homo sapiens must practice universal male circumcision I'll wager a piece of your brain is not functioning optimally.

I admit it is a strange notion, strange to me anyway. However, in light of the degree to which Waton makes sense of so much, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt even on this. It's kinda cool when you think about it. Talk about separating the sheep from the goats and all that.

 

[steve_bank]

I really don't know what you are about, but you appearr to be proselytize like Christians do. An observation not an attack.

I'm a natural born enthusiast. The Bible seems to be a positive thing for me to be enthusiastic about.

Amen brother No Robots. People like that tend to become preachers.

 

[No Robots]

I really don't know what you are about, but you appearr to be proselytize like Christians do. An observation not an attack.

I'm a natural born enthusiast. The Bible seems to be a positive thing for me to be enthusiastic about.

Amen brother No Robots. People like that tend to become preachers.

It's amazing to me, my good fortune. Jews a century ago were under dreadful pressure, so men like Brunner and Waton came forward and spilled all the beans. Now, nobody takes any interest in what they had to say, so the field's wide open for me.

 

[Swammerdami]

We've been around and around and around on this topic, not just in this thread but in other threads. I'm always glad to consider evidence, but not irrelevant meta-arguments.

A month ago I was about 90% certain that a Jesus from Galilee (probably Nazareth) DID exist, was probably baptized by John the Baptist and WAS crucified under Pontius Pilate, and somehow inspired new cult(s). That was about ALL I did know about Jesus.

Now I am about 95% certain. There is a whole cottage industry of "Mythicists"; but they have been tested in this thread and been found wanting. If all their rhetoric is unable to shake the conclusion Occam's Razor dictates I must follow the Razor.

Some time back I asked how we are to ascertain how a story such as Old Man and the Sea is historical or fictional. I asked this of any historicists willing to chime in. Please provide your methodology. With that methodology I will be able to know whether any such tale, regardless the authorship if even known, regardless whether if claims impossible events, is an historical account with factual eyewitness evidence or not. No one has provided me with that formula.

Therefore you should question your 95% certainty claim as you have nothing to base your 95% on that can be applied to other similar tall tales or not-so-tall tales.

I don't know where to begin with this! William Shakspere DID exist, but I do NOT think he wrote the Sonnets. Davy Crockett DID exist but he did NOT kill a bear when he was only three. Do we agree so far? I think it 95% likely that Jesus of Galileo DID exist, was crucified, and inspired a cult. I do NOT think he walked on water. I stressed that I do NOT believe in a super-natural Jesus in many posts, but you ask about "tall tales." Did you miss my disclaimers?

You object to my "95%." Do you have a number? 5%? 0%? Or do you just object to the apparent definiteness of any number?

Old Man and the Sea? I've read books and webpages and even watched YouTubes that debate the historicity of Jesus. I've not expended the effort for Old Man and the Sea. Google immediately coughs up:

Hemingway said the old man was based on nobody in particular, but it is likely he modelled the main character of the novel, Santiago, after a great friend of his, Gregorio Fuentes. Fuentes and Hemingway were fishing buddies in Cuba where Hemingway spent most of his adult life.

Did Gregorio catch a great fish and have it eaten by sharks? Probably not. Who cares?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did Gregorio catch a great fish and have it eaten by sharks? Probably not. Who cares?

Okay, then, no methodology. No problemo.

I asked if you'd ever written fiction, and if you have how you got your material. Writers write from experience, obviously, but not everything they write is something they experienced. No one cares about Santiago but Jesus gets a pass because he's part of someone's religious identity. Writers love when the latter happens, when they can create a tale that becomes popular.

 

[Swammerdami]

Did Gregorio catch a great fish and have it eaten by sharks? Probably not. Who cares?

Okay, then, no methodology. No problemo.

I asked if you'd ever written fiction, and if you have how you got your material. Writers write from experience, obviously, but not everything they write is something they experienced. No one cares about Santiago but Jesus gets a pass because he's part of someone's religious identity. Writers love when the latter happens, when they can create a tale that becomes popular.

You are completely misrepresenting me, especially with the snarky "Okay, then, no methodology. No problemo."

To answer the question on which you are so insistent, I wrote a tiny bit of fiction about 60 years ago. Since then I've fantasized about writing fiction, but haven't — I've never even produced an outline of any intended novel. Satisfied? There's a LOT I've wanted to do but haven't. Does failure to write fiction make me unqualified to think about historicity questions???

You and I are approaching the Jesus historicity issue from COMPLETELY opposite directions. You are relating it to general views of fiction and mythology, without examining specific clues about specific questions. What's your take on "James brother of Jesus Christ"? Or is such a question irrelevant to you since you already know the correct answer to the historicity question?

Believing PART of the Jesus story does not imply believing ALL of the Jesus story. Myths can arise about real people. Consider  Elizabeth Báthory, one of the most gruesome serial killers in history. But was she really even a killer at all? I dunno; do you? In any event, the fact that she really did EXIST is not in dispute.

 

[dbz]

Some time back I asked how we are to ascertain how a story such as Old Man and the Sea is historical or fictional. I asked this of any historicists willing to chime in. Please provide your methodology. With that methodology I will be able to know whether any such tale, regardless the authorship if even known, regardless whether if claims impossible events, is an historical account with factual eyewitness evidence or not.

• Why would Frodo Baggins go to Mordor? If Gandalf was not a real historical personage!

by Leucius Charinus » Aug 01, 2022

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2022 So the death in outer space remains a serious possibility with or without Paul. The authentic Paul allows obviously to have more certainty about the thesis.

IMO moving the death of Jesus into outer space is not going to advance our knowledge of the terrestrial history of Christian origins despite the theses of Doherty and Carrier. Or despite the assertions of the church that Christian heretics were to be regarded as aliens. IMO a death in "Middle-Earth" - where Bilbo Baggins is known to have preserved a collection of letters - also remains a serious possibility.

 

[dbz]

• Carrier (31 July 2022). "Chris Hansen on Jesus from Outer Space". Richard Carrier Blogs.

[Misrepresenting the Gods] Hansen will never accept well-demonstrated facts that they cannot abide being true, like that quite a large number of gods, demigods, and heroes in the Roman era were understood by a lot of people as having literally died, been dead, and risen from the dead to be alive again

• Widowfield, Tim (31 December 2020). "Did Jonathan Z. Smith Really Not Understand Ideal Types? (Part 4)". Vridar.

Jonathan Z. Smith spent a lifetime trying to get us beyond the taboo of suggesting Christians may have borrowed some customs and beliefs from contemporaneous pagan religions. Smith said we should look for analogies and comparisons and we should shun the apologetic, untenable idea of uniqueness. Stop worrying about who borrowed from whom, and start looking for shared ideas and cross-fertilization.

However, the Bauckham camp seems to have won decisively. For any facet of Christianity, if a modern scholar finds any possible link to Judaism, that must be where it came from. If it sounds remotely close to something in the OT or any Jewish writing, you can stop looking. There are never any Christian precursors in the pagan traditions, and anyone who says differently must be laughed out of the room.

Smith held that the famous “dying and rising god” mytheme was a modern myth—not an ancient one. However Carrier asserts that per the Dying-and-Rising God Mytheme, Smith “didn’t even address 99% of the evidence for it, but flat out ignored almost all of it”.

While Smith clearly retreated from the “dying and rising god” mytheme, Widowfield observes that, "Smith doubted the usefulness of the dying-and-rising-god motif because it was too Christian-centric and carried too much historical baggage — with scholars who worried about who adopted what from whom instead of what it all meant to adherents."

Carrier explains what Smith actually claims, contra Ehrman!

• "Dr. Carrier vs Dr. Ehrman: Dying and Rising God Mytheme". YouTube. @time:00:02:15 Godless Engineer. 16 Feb 2022.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are completely misrepresenting me, especially with the snarky "Okay, then, no methodology. No problemo."

To answer the question on which you are so insistent, I wrote a tiny bit of fiction about 60 years ago. Since then I've fantasized about writing fiction, but haven't — I've never even produced an outline of any intended novel. Satisfied? There's a LOT I've wanted to do but haven't. Does failure to write fiction make me unqualified to think about historicity questions???

You and I are approaching the Jesus historicity issue from COMPLETELY opposite directions. You are relating it to general views of fiction and mythology, without examining specific clues about specific questions. What's your take on "James brother of Jesus Christ"? Or is such a question irrelevant to you since you already know the correct answer to the historicity question?

Believing PART of the Jesus story does not imply believing ALL of the Jesus story. Myths can arise about real people. Consider

Elizabeth Báthory, one of the most gruesome serial killers in history. But was she really even a killer at all? I dunno; do you? In any event, the fact that she really did EXIST is not in dispute.

Certainly did not mean any offense. Only insisting that the Jesus character is an amalgam because that's how writers write fiction. There were obviously many bros named Jesus and many not named Jesus. Writers invent characters from their experiences. My insistence that there is no historical Jesus is the same as insisting that there is no historical Superman, Hercules or Santiago.

You are correct that I don't put much thought into 'James the brother of Jesus.'

 

[Jarhyn]

You are completely misrepresenting me, especially with the snarky "Okay, then, no methodology. No problemo."

To answer the question on which you are so insistent, I wrote a tiny bit of fiction about 60 years ago. Since then I've fantasized about writing fiction, but haven't — I've never even produced an outline of any intended novel. Satisfied? There's a LOT I've wanted to do but haven't. Does failure to write fiction make me unqualified to think about historicity questions???

You and I are approaching the Jesus historicity issue from COMPLETELY opposite directions. You are relating it to general views of fiction and mythology, without examining specific clues about specific questions. What's your take on "James brother of Jesus Christ"? Or is such a question irrelevant to you since you already know the correct answer to the historicity question?

Believing PART of the Jesus story does not imply believing ALL of the Jesus story. Myths can arise about real people. Consider

Elizabeth Báthory, one of the most gruesome serial killers in history. But was she really even a killer at all? I dunno; do you? In any event, the fact that she really did EXIST is not in dispute.

Certainly did not mean any offense. Only insisting that the Jesus character is an amalgam because that's how writers write fiction. There were obviously many bros named Jesus and many not named Jesus. Writers invent characters from their experiences. My insistence that there is no historical Jesus is the same as insisting that there is no historical Superman, Hercules or Santiago.

You are correct that I don't put much thought into 'James the brother of Jesus.'

Well, more to the point, we can be fairly certain there was A guy named Jesus who DID start a cult, and did do some things, some of which may be described in GMark or Toledot Yeshu with the truth, where it exists at all, so stretched it looks like The Hulk's underwear.

Combined with this is the fact that this person's life happened along side several other offshoots of a primary baptismal cult culture in the region, most of which would have collapsed into a disarrayed confusion following the rapid-fire execution of the movement's primary speakers.

As such, "historicity" counts for little beyond "someone like this lived but so many people lied so vigorously about him that their existence as a person who did stuff *kind of like a small bit of that* is as much as we know about them."

And then despite this uncertainty we have folks banging on about how we can ascertain that from these clear lies, the tallest tale among them is absolutely true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Believing PART of the Jesus story does not imply believing ALL of the Jesus story. Myths can arise about real people. Consider

Elizabeth Báthory, one of the most gruesome serial killers in history. But was she really even a killer at all? I dunno; do you? In any event, the fact that she really did EXIST is not in dispute.

That was an interesting read. I think a rational person would agree she did exist.

We're probably actually in agreement about the Jesus character in the NT as far as historicity goes, we're just using different words. I just don't put any credence in the religious spin. Does that make sense? I know how writers write.

Except for the accusations of torture there was a lady in I believe it was New York State who rand a daycare. She was accused of performing all manner of satanic, bizzare and ritualistic things with the kids. Turns out none of it was true and after much publicity it all disappeared with the state paying her compensation. That was decades ago, maybe thirty years.

Yes, people conjure up all manner of hilarity. The HJ is more the writer(s) than anything written when you get right down to it.

 

[dbz]

Richard Carrier comment-26307—10 July 2018—per "Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!". Richard Carrier Blogs. 28 June 2018.

[O]ne can even argue—if we didn’t have the Gospels and Acts imagining a 30s AD date for the religion’s origin, or if we decided to reject that as fiction—that Paul’s letters are more or at least as congruous with the Hasmonean date for the origins of Christianity rather than the Roman, i.e. Paul wrote in the 50s BC, not AD.

There is nothing in Paul that argues against that; we only oppose it on the grounds that the Gospels and Acts don’t seem to know this (or are lying about it); although that’s in effect what the Talmud entails, since it places the death of Jesus precisely in the Hasmonean period (in the 70s BC, twenty years after which is the 50s BC), as did, it seems, the Nazorian sect (if that’s how we should read Epiphanius; at any rate, Epiphanius describes an argument for dating Jesus to the 70s BC, wherever that came from or whatever reason he inserts it into his account of the Nazorians). See, again, Ch. 8.1 of On the Historicity of Jesus.

One other argument against that is that that entails a strangely long period of silence in the Christian record: no literature whatever produced for over a century, between Paul (and 1 Clement and Hebrews and maybe 1 Peter), and then we get the Gospels, Acts, then half a century to a century after that an explosion of Christian literature. This is not impossible to explain, but it does require a lot of ad hocery. And it would just be a speculation void of evidence.

On the other hand, one argument for it is that it would make more sense of Paul’s telling us Aretas had a governor occupying or embargoing Damascus he had to flee from (2 Cor. 11:32-33). In the AD scenario, that requires supposing that incident happened during the Aretas-Judean conflict in 36-37 AD. No other date fits. Though we have no explicit account of Aretas occupying or embargoing Damascus in that war (it’s plausible given what we know, but not directly attested). However, some scholars suggest Paul means by ethnarch in that passage a diplomatic prefect, i.e. the marshal of a “Nabataean Quarter” of Damascus. Though we have no evidence for that being a thing either (though again it is nevertheless also plausible). By contrast, if Paul meant an incident in the 70s or 60s BC, he would have meant Aretas III rather than Aretas IV, who did in fact rule Damascus from 85 to 72 BC.

That this would perfectly align Paul’s entire chronology and ministry with the Talmudic Jesus executed in the 70s BC is indeed intriguing. But alas, this can only be speculated. There isn’t enough evidence to argue it’s probable. Meanwhile the same remarkable coincidence exists between Paul having had to dodge Aretas’s officials in 36, and the date our Gospels and Acts imply for the origin of the religion. The agreement is equally apposite.

• Per bart willruth 2022-03-18 Vridar, "The evidence we have is that ALL copies of old manuscripts, prior to the fourth century, used the abbreviation…"

Metzger, Bruce M. (1981). Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-536532-0.

In the developed Byzantine usage the fifteen nomina sacra in their nominative and genitive forms are as follows: […] Scholars differ in accounting for the origin and development of the system of nomina sacra.

• If the term δημιουργός (dēmiourgós) provided by Plato in Timaeus 29a, became—in cultist slang jargon —shortened to ιουργός (ΙΟΥΡΓΌΣ), then it may be the source for the nomina sacra ΙΣ, i.e. Jesus/ιησοῦς (ΙΗΣΟΥ͂Σ).

"IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS" earlywritings.com

by mlinssen » Jul 09, 2022

We still have to encounter the first Jesus or Christ spelled out in full in a Greek MS - I've come to 7th CE and not seen anything...
[...]
But would this be basic knowledge for scholars? Those with a Divinity degree, Theology degree, perhaps a certain chair?
Is this basic knowledge for biblical academic? If yes, for whom? If no, why not?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS" earlywritings.com

The information in that link is nothing short of astonishing. We read these early documents today and assume that when we see the word "Jesus" or "Christ" that we're reading the work as it existed, but it never occurred that way. The discussion of Thomas is also quite interesting. The Jesus character or the nomina sacra seems to have been simply a repository for sayings. Really changes the appreciation, like learning Shakespeare's alleged signatures are actually the hand of legal clerks.

 

[steve_bank]

"IS XS: No Jesus or Christ spelled out in early MSS" earlywritings.com

The information in that link is nothing short of astonishing. We read these early documents today and assume that when we see the word "Jesus" or "Christ" that we're reading the work as it existed, but it never occurred that way. The discussion of Thomas is also quite interesting. The Jesus character or the nomina sacra seems to have been simply a repository for sayings. Really changes the appreciation, like learning Shakespeare's alleged signatures are actually the hand of legal clerks.

Kind of like the collection of moral stories under the heading of Aesop's Fables.