The Christ Myth Theory

[dbz]

So ... What do Infidels think?

I think there is insufficient evidence to establish the proposition as more likely to be true than not.
The proposition being that the gospel accounts of Jesus are based on a single flesh and blood historical person.

Your arguments in this thread have been nothing but a giant web of arguments from ignorance. Don't just ask the question, spell out the answer, and provide the facts and logic to support what you believe to be the correct answer. If you want to criticize Carrier's work, or something someone wrote, explain why you think they are wrong instead of simply begging the question over and over.

---

---

Let's recapitulate a bit. This thread is about "The Christ Myth Theory" — the theory that the Gospels derived ZERO material from the life of an historic Galilean named Jesus who was executed under Pontius Pilate.
[. . .]
It was only a few weeks ago that I even became aware of the Christ Myth Theory...

Really? I would of never guessed

That's not how historians use Bayes. The questions you have raised for probability estimates actually beg the question of historicity. They assume situations that would exist if the core of the gospel story is historical -- which is what we are trying to determine, so we can't begin with that assumption.

Bayesian reasoning is applied to the actual evidence before us. That is what Carrier has done and in that respect, for all his faults in other areas, he has applied Bayesian reasoning in history correctly.

 

[Swammerdami]

What I have repeatedly claimed is that the historicity question is much too complicated to hope for any simple Bayesian analysis.

Explain why. And then explain how the proposition should be properly addressed, if not through a Bayesian analysis, presenting your own analysis of the available information. Asking leading questions which presuppose the answers is not how arguments are presented.

What is the probability that Alexander the Great was historical? What about Gilgamesh? Use Bayesian analysis. I think we'd all agree that Alexander's probability "should" be close to 100%, but is it clear how to get there with Bayesian analysis? And what about Gilgamesh? What is your estimate? And show your Bayesian work! I couldn't. First I'd want to clarify exactly what "historical Gilgamesh" even means. Then, no matter how much study I put in, or effort to pose it in Bayesian terms, I'd end up making wild-ass probability guesses.

[Playful example to show how easy it is for "Bayesian Analysis" to be gibberish. Treating Alexander's historicity as unknown, we find five other examples of men who conquered a vast empire by age 25. All five were mythical. Using Laplace's Rule of succession (s+1 / n+2) we find that Alexander's historicity is a 1-in-7 longshot! ]

Since you don't seem to understand this, I introduced the hypothetical which you refuse to consider. Let's try again.

This is not third grade show and tell. I am confident that I will be able to follow any analysis you might put forward, if you were to actually put forward an analysis. It is both insulting and frustrating that you continue to assume that I am a moron when I have told you my qualifications.

Your alleged qualifications make you exempt from answering a trivial thought experiment. But my qualifications might get me a date but are worthless in your opinion. Got it.

The trivial thought experiment was carefully contrived by me as sort of a minimal example to demonstrate that probability analysis needs to incorporate ALL available evidence. I'll wait for you to do that exercise. Jesus historicity is HUGELY more complicated than the trivial example, yet you are unwilling or unable to comment on the trivial example.

We all know the fable of the guy who's looking for his keys under the lamp-post because the light is better there, even though he lost them across the street. ANY simplistic approach to "Bayesian analysis" of Jesus' historicity will suffer from that flaw.

You persist in asking and asking a question which I have already answered and answered and answered.

What you must NOT do, if your analysis is objective and sincere, is to zero out any probability you find it too difficult or confusing to estimate.

I've no problem with the principle of Bayesian analysis, but I think it is impossibly difficult to apply in many complicated cases.

too complicated

Rather than a complete solution, I've asked Infidels to focus specifically on the James/Jesus quandary — this is an important piece of the historicity case though "working the (Bayesian) numbers" is VERY non-trivial.

Propose a better estimate, and explain why your estimate is better. Show us your work.

You wrote that you don't know if Josephus wrote about Jesus's brother James. I asked you whether that admission implied that your probability estimate that Josephus wrote about Jesus' brother James is zero. You didn't answer. Care to try again?

I don't want to waste my time talking about hypotheticals. What part of this do you not understand?
I repeat, I have no way to verify that Josephus wrote this. Again, even assuming that Josephus wrote this, I have no way to verify his sources, or which Jesus and James he is talking about. There is no context under which any reasonable person would assign any kind of weight to this evidence that isn't zero or very close to zero. If you disagree, tell us what you would have assigned instead, and explain why. That way we actually have something to talk about.

Let me repeat my question which you've not answered. Are

• I have no way to verify that Josephus wrote this, and
• The probability Josephus wrote this equals zero

the same things? I am rather confident you know the correct answer to this but that is NOT clear from your posts.
If the Josephus writing is relevant to the historicity claim, do you see that relevant estimates are necessary? Even wild-ass guesses are better than arbitrarily assigning zero to any overly-complicated antecedent.

There are MANY different possibilities for the James/Jesus mentions. Honest efforts to guess the respective chance for each possibility would be better than repeating shrill demands.

I hope those presenting opinions on Josephus' James/Jesus also offer opinions on Paul's James/Jesus. It appears that Carrier treats these as two different Jameses and two different Jesuses.

@ atrib — What's your guess here? I can make my own GUESS whether Carrier is correct, but I don't see any easy way to fit that into a Bayesian framework. Do you think Carrier's view is correct here? 100% or some other number?

Can you post a screenshot of what Carrier wrote exactly please? I am too lazy to find the book and pull it up.

I did a copy-paste from Carrier's blog and posted the URL. WTF are you talking about? Screenshot????????

 

[dbz]

@Swammerdami

If you intend to further argue that Josephus’ testimony and other non-Christian sources are independent of the Gospels (and Gospel-dependent Christian legends and informants). Please explain why you have concluded it can be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels.

Until then Josephus’ testimony is a side topic of interest—separate from the question of the historicity Jesus

 

[dbz]

What are the kinds of evidence accepted here? (E1) Direct empirical evidence that something’s the case​ (E2) Reliable testimony from person P in his or her own words​ (E3) Reliable eye-witness accounts​ (E4) Expert witness testimony based on E1-3​ --------------------------------------------------------------​ (E5) Circumstantial evidence​ […] We can’t or shouldn’t decide in favor of positive claims in doubtful cases, on circumstantial evidence alone.

—Narve Strand[6]

 

[dbz]

I can make my own GUESS whether Carrier is correct, but I don't see any easy way to fit that into a Bayesian framework.

@Swammerdami, Are you blind? Perhaps that is why you think Carrier's Bayesian framework is soft and mushy!

 

[dbz]

What I have repeatedly claimed is that the historicity question is much too complicated to hope for any simple Bayesian analysis.

Explain why. And then explain how the proposition should be properly addressed, if not through a Bayesian analysis, presenting your own analysis of the available information. Asking leading questions which presuppose the answers is not how arguments are presented.

What is the probability that Alexander the Great was historical? What about Gilgamesh? Use Bayesian analysis. I think we'd all agree that Alexander's probability "should" be close to 100%, but is it clear how to get there with Bayesian analysis? And what about Gilgamesh? What is your estimate? And show your Bayesian work! I couldn't. First I'd want to clarify exactly what "historical Gilgamesh" even means. Then, no matter how much study I put in, or effort to pose it in Bayesian terms, I'd end up making wild-ass probability guesses.

[Playful example to show how easy it is for "Bayesian Analysis" to be gibberish. Treating Alexander's historicity as unknown, we find five other examples of men who conquered a vast empire by age 25. All five were mythical. Using Laplace's Rule of succession (s+1 / n+2) we find that Alexander's historicity is a 1-in-7 longshot! ]

• Carrier (18 October 2021). "How to Correctly Employ Bayesian Probabilities to Describe Historical Reasoning (Jesus Edition)". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Bayesian methods only quantify and thus describe, and therefore expose ordinary everyday reasoning about history, revealing when it is valid and sound, and when it is not. But to use it that way, you have to use it correctly. Just like any other method or logic.

 

[dbz]

We all know the fable of the guy who's looking for his keys under the lamp-post because the light is better there, even though he lost them across the street. ANY simplistic approach to "Bayesian analysis" of Jesus' historicity will suffer from that flaw.

You persist in asking and asking a question which I have already answered and answered and answered.

What you must NOT do, if your analysis is objective and sincere, is to zero out any probability you find it too difficult or confusing to estimate.

I've no problem with the principle of Bayesian analysis, but I think it is impossibly difficult to apply in many complicated cases.

too complicated

Anyone who objects to our discovery on the grounds that history doesn’t (or, presumably, couldn’t) employ Bayesian statistics, obviously hasn’t read either of our books, or didn’t pay attention to what those books said, or else doesn’t know what the word statistics means.

I’ve noted before that Kamil Gregor may be one such person. For example, he apparently expects that if you don’t have thousands of data points, you can’t apply Bayesian reasoning to reach any conclusion from the data. False. But the mistake he is making is that he is talking about statistics, not probability theory, and then forgetting he’s doing that, and thus fallaciously equivocating between the two. Bayesian reasoning is a logic, a way of carefully defining and vetting any reasoning you engage in.

—Carrier (26 February 2020). "Bayesian Statistics vs. Bayesian Epistemology". Richard Carrier Blogs.​

 

[dbz]

Gospels​

[Per] Jesus and the Gospels. This is neither an objective historical genre, nor pure fiction (as a genre), but a shady concoction of theology deemed to be rooted in a historical tradition built up from cognitive dissonance, hope, faith, and communal/tribal identity. But most of all, it is evangelising propaganda designed to persuade. And it is often genius. The thought that went into the Gospels and the way in which they pull of certain themes and tropes from, say, the Hebrew Bible can at times be brilliant.

—Jonathan MS Pearce[1]

The intertextuality

of the Gospel of Mark—and its embellished variants Matthew, Luke, John—with Old Testament scripture has been recognized by scholars such as Thomas L. Brodie

, who writes, "Since around 1970 an alternative explanation of the New Testament and related texts has been emerging. Researchers are recognizing precise ways in which New Testament texts are explained as depending not on oral tradition but on older literature, especially older scripture."[6][7][8][9] Neil Godfrey writes,[10]

Following Thomas L. Thompson’s

overview of the way the Jewish Scriptures were written I tend to see the Gospel of Mark as yet one more story in the same tradition as other (OT) biblical narratives.
[...]
The same story of being lost, then called, then obeying, then falling away, then punishment, then restoration is told over and over. Each story warns the “new Israel” not to fall into the errors of the “old Israel”.
The Gospel of Mark (and its [embellished] variants, Matthew, John, Luke) continue that same tradition of literature and theology. . . . The same story of the displacement of the natural order or privileged generation in favour of the younger and chosen is repeated in the Exodus (the old generation must die and the new enter the land of promise), in the stories of the prophets and their promises for a new generation, in the selection of the younger/initially disposessed over the older, right through to the New Testament.
The motifs for new beginnings are also repeated — the splitting of the waters at the initial creation is repeated again with the renewal after the Flood, and then again in the Exodus and Red Sea crossing, and then the crossing of Jordan as those waters also divided, then with Elijah and Elisha at the Jordan, then again at the baptism of Jesus.
The stories are retold, recycled, in their different mutations, and they are re-written for new generations who may have come through some crisis or are desirous of a new start as a “new” people of God who are now learning the lessons of the old generation, both in their real experience and in the stories themselves.

Gospels as history​

The generally unreliable, untrustworthy, and fiction-filled Gospels can occasionally be considered excellent sources of objective and accurate historical information because of their foundational written sources, which do not exist, which contained many fictions if they did, and which cannot now be scrutinised for authorship, age, genre, intent, and so forth. These hypothetical written sources are themselves based on oral traditions, that also cannot be scrutinised, that changed over time, and that may well have been made up whole cloth. Therefore we have conclusive proof that Jesus definitely existed.

—Raphael Lataster describing Bart Ehrman's approach to the Gospels.[19]

As with most religious texts, scholars assume some basic level of reliability on topics like "Who were the players?", "What were the major events?" and "What was the attitude of the community the texts intend to represent?"[20] However there are major issues of reliability per standard historical methodologies. Richard Carrier writes,[21]

[W]e discount the Gospels as at all reliable on standard historical methodologies that would produce the same result in every other field:

• They’re late, post-dating any evident witness known to still be alive;
• and written in a foreign land and language;
• by unknown authors of unknown credentials;
• who cite no sources, and give no indication they had any sources;
• and never critically engage with their material but only credulously (e.g. they never discuss conflicting accounts or reasons to believe their information, unlike rational historians of the era);
• and about whose texts we have no reactions, critical or otherwise—whatever people were saying about these Gospels when they came out, we never get to hear, not for many more decades, by which time we see those reacting have no other information to judge them by;
• all the earliest of which texts just copy their predecessors verbatim and change and add a few things;
• and which contain in every pericope patent implausibilities or wholly unbelievable stories (from a random guy splitting the heavens and battling the devil and wandering out of the desert and converting disciples to instantly abandon their livelihoods after but a few sentences, to mystically murdering thousands of pigs, miraculously feeding thousands of itinerants, curing the blind, calming storms, and walking on water; from having a guy arguing against Pharisees with arguments that actually were the arguments of the Pharisees, to depicting a trial and execution that violates every law and custom of the time; and beyond);
• which stories have obvious and rather convenient pedagogical uses in later missionary work;
• and often emulate and “change up” the prior myths of other historically dubious heroes, like Moses and Elijah;
• and often contain details that can only have been written a lifetime later (like the Sermon on the Mount, which was composed in Greek after the Jewish War; or prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction, likewise; or Mark’s emulation of the passion of Jesus ben Ananias or Luke’s confused cooption of The Antiquities of Josephus; and so on).
• and for none which do we have any prior corroboration.

There is no field of history—absolutely none—where such sources as these would be trusted as history at all.

The Gospels are so literarily crafted (OHJ, Ch. 10), and so reactive to each other (e.g. in their baptism, empty tomb, nativity stories and beyond) that there is not any evidence left for a tradition even existing. Mark is inventing tradition by reifying Paul … Matthew is inventing tradition to respond to Mark and recent history (e.g. it’s now the mainstream view that the Sermon on the Mount was a post-War fabrication of a Hellenized Jew: OHJ, index). Luke is inventing tradition to fix them; and John, to fix Luke (e.g. John fabricates the entire Lazarus tradition to refute Luke’s parable of Lazarus: OHJ, Ch. 10.7). The evidence actually indicates this is all being created. The Gospels are not random collections of lore; they are deliberate and coherent constructs, top to bottom.[22]

 

[dbz]

The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever by "Nicholas Peter Legh Allen". scholar.google.co.za. NB: Allen curriculum vitae.

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0B8ZKHJ1C
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 7, 2022

A comprehensive history of the evolution of Christianity. This volume was written for individuals who have realised that basing one’s worldview on consensus of opinion, popular myth and fable is quite unproductive. In this context, this book would be of immense value for anyone who seeks genuine, factual and scientific answers concerning their unexamined beliefs. This book promises to assist anyone who desires to become an informed and self-actualised individual empowered to continue on with their lives as a rational and critical thinker. In this context, this book is aimed primarily at perceptive individuals who may lack the necessary background knowledge and who would sincerely and genuinely desire to become more knowledgeable regarding the development and manifestation of Christianity and its contradictory dogmas. Accordingly, this encyclopaedic book has been carefully designed and set out in order to offer a step-by-step education.

Written by an expert in both the history of the ancient near East and Classical history, this book would be of enormous benefit for serious students of not only the primary branches of Judaism and Christianity but also Zoroastrianism, numerous polytheistic religions and the mystery religions.

Allen, N.P.L.​

• Nicholas Peter Legh Allen argues that the following points hold for the “James Passage (JP)“, i.e. Jewish Antiquities 20.200.

Per Allen, N.P.L. (2015) Clarifying the Scope of Pre-Fifth-Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae (c. 94 C.E.). Unpublished Philosophiae Doctor thesis, Potchefstroom: North-West University. available online @ http://dspace.nwu.ac.za/handle/10394/14213

[N]o reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist. —(p. ii)
[…]
4.7 Chapter Four Summary – Based on the arguments reviewed thus far it can be ascertained that:
1. Apart from the JP we do not have any other extra-biblical evidence that James even existed. Here, the Dead Sea Scroll literature cannot serve as evidence for James’ existence. Based purely on the NT it is possible to surmise that he was believed to be Jesus’ sibling, favoured circumcision and held a senior leadership position in the Jerusalem Church in the first century C.E. However, it is solely Christian tradition that supplies details of his trial and death;
2. All Christian apologists cited (Origen, Eusebius and Jerome) misquote Josephus as regards the reasons for the destruction of Jerusalem. This means that, apart from them possibly regurgitating a Christian tradition, they were certainly capable of embellishment or there once existed a Josephan text that is now lost;
3. Origen quotes the JP practically verbatim strengthening the notion that he had read it. However, he never refers to the JP as the JP – only in the context of quoting Josephus in order to justify the spurious cause for the destruction of the Temple;
4. The JP is far less embellished than one would expect from the details of the Christian tradition;
5. James’ mention is cursory. It has been suggested that he is only mentioned because his illegal execution causes Ananus to be deposed. However, given that he is uncharacteristically refered to as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” cannot be dismissed as being merely incidental;
6. If a Christian forger had inserted a reference to Jesus in the JP, he would have more likely ensured that it received more prominence. However, this factor really depends on the actual opportunity and intentions of the forger. One should not generalise the specific reasons for this possible forgery;
7. Josephus’ JP account differs in time and details from the official second century Christian accounts, suggesting early authorship;
8. Albinus arrived in Jerusalem in c. 59 C.E. and could not possibly have arrived as late as say 68 or 70 CE as intimated by the Christian tradition. Therefore, if the Christian tradition is correct then the JP is a proven forgery. If the JP is authentic then the Christian tradition is inaccurate;
and
9. The preceding passages leading up to the JP appear to be skipping vital information.
—(pp. 326f)

• Allen, Nicholas P. L. (2017). “Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of 20.9.1”. Journal of Early Christian History. 7 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/2222582X.2017.1317008.

This article reviews the well-known (supposedly Josephan) mention of James as “the Brother of Jesus” (i.e. Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1.200). Here, with reference to, inter alia, the insights of Earl Doherty, Steve Mason, Peter Kirby, John Paul Meier, Nikos Kokkinos, as well as to certain key findings gleaned from critical readings of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew and Contra Celsum, I attempt to demonstrate Origen’s possible role in the creation of this long-suspected fraudulent text. In this regard, by highlighting a number of Origen’s key philosophical and theological refutations it becomes evident that apart from the unlikelihood of Josephus ever writing about James, Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery.

 

[dbz]

• Michael Lockwood — scholar and writer

From many angles of research covered in the three books of my trilogy, the books of the New Testament are shown to be historical fiction. Though these books are profound works of literature, they are still works of fiction. And since the New Testament narratives are replete with allusions to Buddhist stories, as well as to stories in the Septuagint, and to Homer’s epics, and to the narratives of Euripides, Sophocles, and Plato, among others, and in the Book of Revelation, to ancient Egyptian narratives, and, finally, to historical accounts of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, it becomes incumbent on researchers to examine carefully and extensively the well-documented studies of Buddhist influence on Christianity.[100]

Michael Lockwood was born in British India. He earned degrees from Oberlin College, B.A. (English), Boston University, M.A. (philosophy), and Madras University, Ph.D. (philosophy) and taught philosophy for thirty-two years (1966-1998), in South India at Madras Christian College, Tambaram. He has published the books, Buddhism’s Relation to Christianity (Madras 2010); Mythicism (Madras 2013); and The Unknown Buddha of Christianity (Tambaram 2019), and was an editor contributor for Indology.

Covington, Nicholas (May 10, 2022). "Review: The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism". Hume's Apprentice.

Christianity is a Western Branch of Buddhism, by Michael Lockwood. The gospel of thomas having an alphabet story about Jesus and a parallel story being told about the buddha is fascinating and fairly reasonable to attribute to influence. The Johannine passages the author argues are derivative from Buddhism seems very much within the realm of coincidence in my eyes. On the other hand, I believe there was literary mimesis between the walking on water stories in Jataka 190 about Buddha and Matthew 14:22-33, with the former emphasizing focus as giving one the ability to do all things and the latter emphasizing faith. So I believe there was interplay between ancient Christianity and buddhism and throughout the ages even (with St. Jehosephat being a Christianized Buddha in the Middle Ages) but doubt strongly that Christianity is nothing more than a Westernized Buddhism.

HERMANN DETERING: JESUS ON THE OTHER SHORE

5 THE CHRISTIAN REDEEMER JESUS – A RESULT OF
THE JEWISH-BUDDHIST EXEGESIS
On the basis of the gnostic interpretation of the Exodus
motif and the question of its historical religious origin, we
came across the central importance of the image of the
“other shore” used as a transcendence metaphor, which
plays a significant role in Indian/Buddhist spirituality.
The question of where the two lines converge, on the one
hand Jewish tradition and Hebrew Scripture, and on the
other hand Buddhist or Indian spirituality, led us to the
Theraputae, about whom Philo of Alexandria reports in his
book De Vita Contemplativa.
Once the Buddhist origin of the Therapeutae was recog-
nized as plausible, it could be shown that their central
mystery is an interpretation of the Exodus motif based on
underlying Buddhist sources. At the same time, this inter-
pretation contains the germ of the Christian baptismal sac-
rament.
Early Christian Gnostics like the Peratae and Naassenes
transferred to Moses’ successor Joshua, what for the Ther-
apeutae, being more deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition,
was reserved to Moses. The old Moses cult was to be super-
seded by the new, Gnostic-Christian Joshua cult. Je-
sus/Joshua became the counterpart of Moses.
The Christian Redeemer Joshua/Jesus is nothing more
than that – a result of the Jewish-Buddhist exegesis of the
Old Testament! The “historical” Jesus, i.e., Jesus of Naza-
reth, was hypostatized from the image of the Old Testa-
ment Joshua during the 2nd century.
[
It goes far beyond the limited task of this essay to trace in
detail the complicated literary and historical process that led
from the “ford crosser” Joshua ben Nun to the “historical Je-
sus”. It is clear that the idea of passion and resurrection was
still alien to the original Jesus/Joshua cult. Presumably it
goes back to a combining with the myth of the dying and resur-
rected mystery god (Osiris, Attis, Adonis, etc.) spread through-
out the Mediterranean. The myth was originally without
temporal fixation. It only originated in the second century
from this foundation in the Gospels. In them, Jesus is de-
scribed as a historical person under Pontius Pilate. The au-
thor of the Gospel of Mark was certainly one of the first to
portray the image of the Savior as a historical figure and to
portray Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (Christ)
]

 

[dbz]

The mythicist position is based on prejudice, not fact. Mythicists want to believe the Gospels are 100% fiction. Actual facts are of no interest to them.

A dubious claim is that vivid details in the gospel narratives are indicators of eyewitness sources. Lataster cites a range of scholars, including biblical ones, who raise doubts about such a claim; and he also notes many examples of vividly told fiction. Carrier asserts that: "Verisimilitude is . . . just as likely to be found in fiction as history; it is what mythographers aimed to create. 'Verisimilitude' therefore cannot be evidence warranting our putting the same trust in the private, uncorroborated details of a tall tale that we can put in the public, corroborated incidentals that [said] tale is colored with. To behave otherwise is simply to codify gullibility."[202]

Another problem is the supernatural in the gospel narratives. It is not sufficient to remove the supernatural and then suspect the mundane remnant of having some probable historicity (see §.Philosophy scholars). Very often it is the supernatural that is the very point of the story; remove the supernatural and one has removed anything of interest. The supernatural is not the embellishment; it is the core of and the reason for the story.

The most problematic issue of historical Jesus scholarship is the extent to which Christian scholars—and many atheists—tend to assume that the gospels contain some historical core material or are derived from reports of historical events.

Tales about the ministry or life, even parables, of Jesus simply don’t exist until the Gospels suddenly invent them. Yet this should be impossible. If those stories and parables got preserved and retold everywhere for decades, how can they never have mattered to anyone who writes about Jesus? These things are never referenced as teaching tools or sources of information or guidance, they are never repeated to shore up or respond to arguments or teach a point, they are never asked or argued about. A memory so pervasively unimportant cannot possibly have even survived forty years to be then recorded; whereas any memory that could, and so robustly and luxuriously as we find in the Gospels, cannot possibly have been so totally and thoroughly irrelevant to every prior Christian author and their audience and challengers.

So I don’t think we are ignoring the possibility the Gospels record oral lore. We simply have no reason to believe it—and every reason to disbelieve it. We’ve moved on. Scholarship needs to join us. Because until they do, all they are doing is chasing a ghost of their own making.

—Carrier (31 July 2021). "The GCRR eConference on the Historical Jesus: A Retrospective". Richard Carrier Blogs.​

 

[dbz]

Let's recapitulate a bit. This thread is about "The Christ Myth Theory" — the theory that the Gospels derived ZERO material from the life of an historic Galilean named Jesus who was executed under Pontius Pilate.
[. . .]
It was only a few weeks ago that I even became aware of the Christ Myth Theory...

Really? I would of never guessed

Could you just set out the things you think are facts about a singular character? For example you might say that Chrestus of Rome is the person of Christ in the synoptics. You might say that the gospel protagonist was actually baptized by John. You might enumerate a couple of the things in those stories that you think he actually said. Etc.

I have done that already, more than once in this thread. I think there was a Jesus from Galilee who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. For some reason he became important to 1st-century cult(s). Period. He probably came from the town of Nazareth, probably was baptized by John the Baptist, and the method of execution was probably crucifixion. He probably had a brother named James.. Period.

Is this a very minimalist notion of the historical Jesus? Absolutely. And that is why I find it astounding that the "mythicists" are unwilling to accept even this much.

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.

@Swammerdami , I suspect the "Dunning–Kruger effect" (RationalWiki) has increased your 95% certainty by now?

HJers remind me of the following movie quote:

- Lt. Aldo Raine: Are you going to take off your uniform?
- Pvt. Butz: Not only shall I remove it, I intend to burn it.
- Lt. Aldo Raine: Yeah, that's what we thought. We don't like that. You see, we like our Nazis in uniform. That way you can spot 'em just like that. But you take off that uniform, ain't no one ever gonna know you were a Nazi.

—"Inglourious Basterds". Universal Pictures. 2009.

 

[dbz]

Bayesian methods are becoming increasingly important in Philosophy of Religion, as evidenced by Richard Swinburne, Robin Collins, William Lane Craig, and Herman Philipse. Aviezer Tucker has argued that History would benefit from a Bayesian approach, and archaeologists — including those investigating biblical claims — are increasingly agreeing.¹³⁶ I have argued for the broad adoption of Bayesian reasoning, as well as for its use in Biblical and Religious Studies, adding to the growing voices in opposition to the increasingly-maligned Criteria of Authenticity, which are oft-used in Historical Jesus research.¹³⁷ Historian Richard Carrier has recently argued for the general use of Bayes’ Theorem, and also notes that the methods already used by competent historians are essentially Bayesian. In this, he was supported by Religious Studies scholar and New Testament expert Hector Avalos, who argued that this approach could revolutionise historical Jesus studies and could even cast doubt on Jesus’ existence. (p. 163)

[136] Aviezer Tucker, Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).; Efraim Wallach, “Bayesian Representation of a Prolonged Archaeological Debate,” Synthese 195, no. 1 (2018): 401-431. The latter further cites the work of Merrilee H. Salmon and Alison Wylie.

[137] Raphael Lataster, “Bayesian Reasoning: Criticising the ‘Criteria of Authenticity’ and Calling for a Review of Biblical Criticism,” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences 5, no. 2 (2013): 271-293. Also publishing much in Philosophy of Religion, I have used Bayesian reasoning to argue against Jesus’ resurrection. See Raphael Lataster, ‘A Philosophical and Historical Analysis of William Lane Craig’s Resurrection of Jesus Argument,” Think 14, no. 39 (2015): 59-71.

—Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934.​

• "Bayesian Calculator". richardcarrier.info. "This page was composed in 2011 and revised in 2012 by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. It is intended as a helpful resource, and accordingly it will likely be revised, updated, or expanded in future."

The bottom line is, if you want to assert “Jesus probably existed,” then you need to be able to explain how you know that. How do you know that probability is high? If you can’t answer that question, in any logical way from the actual evidence there is, then you cannot honestly claim to know Jesus probably existed. And yet answering that question, requires rolling up your sleeves, figuring out Bayes’ Theorem, and presenting evidence for different frequency estimates than mine, as presented in On the Historicity of Jesus (master table in Chapter 12.1). So if that’s what you want to assert, please get to doing that already.

And this same reasoning follows for every claim you wish to assert or deny. If you want to win any argument, if you want to be right about anything, you have to know you are right and show you are right. And that requires knowing and showing how you get a high probability for your conclusion. And that requires knowing and showing how you get your priors and likelihoods. Because that’s what you are already doing intuitively. So you should know how to do it explicitly. So you can vet the accuracy of your own intuition, and so someone else’s intuition can be educated to see what it’s missing or how it’s erring.

—Carrier (6 July 2017). "What Is Bayes' Theorem & How Do You Use It? ". Richard Carrier Blogs.​

• "The Bayesian Analysis - The Probability Jesus Didn't Exist With Dr. Richard Carrier". YouTube. History Valley. 5 November 2021.

 

[Swammerdami]

@Swammerdami , I suspect the "Dunning–Kruger effect" (RationalWiki) has increased your 95% certainty by now?

I have made specific comments about the historicity question, and posed specific questions, none of which you have deigned to answer.
Instead we are met with circular reasoning from you and your ilk. Nobody has made an intelligent rebuttal to my comments about "Bayesian analysis." Nobody has deigned to work the simple example that demonstrates the non-triviality of probabilistic analysis. What's the matter? Was even that trivial problem too difficult for you? No intelligible interpretation of the James/Jesus quandary. Is that also too difficult for you?

What we learn instead is that Dr. Richard Carrier PhD (who has a doctorate) tells us that he applies Bayesian analysis correctly ... and that is all you and your Ilk need to know! Holy Jeebus!! And YOU are the ilk that think Chrestians put too much faith in a religious figure!!! What a joke.

Your posts in the thread have been largely worthless, long litanies quoted from Carrier et al without any attempt by you to summarize, add context or opinion, or even to relate them to anything you are ostensibly answering. Two days ago or so, you DID post one long laundry list with dozens of items, mostly contradicting each other. Congratulions on that I guess!

And now, still unable to even work out a trivial toy problem to test whether you have the slightest clue about probabilities, you resort to ad hominems. If this keeps up, I will place you on my Ignore list. THAT should bring you a measure of pride and joy — My Ignore List is currently empty.

And whether I end up Ignoring you or not,
Kindly do not invoke the User Mention function on me again. This is a formal request.

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps this is a derail, but it is intended in the vein of Christ and Myth and how the Myth does damage to the Message:

One of the most valuable stories is in fact how it doesn't take being born prince or the son of god to reach some state of enlightenment.

Even someone born the bastard son of a soldier can get there.

The virgin birth is clearly an attempt to dress up a bastard as something, anything but.

The biggest insult to humanity has been the trope of the protagonist of auspicious birth.

And this myth robs us of balm against such lies against people of common birth.

 

[Learner]

Perhaps this is a derail, but it is intended in the vein of Christ and Myth and how the Myth does damage to the Message:

(Sorry not meant to derail too, just a qucik response)

"Jesus never existed" is damage to the message.

One of the most valuable stories is in fact how it doesn't take being born prince or the son of god to reach some state of enlightenment.

Even someone born the bastard son of a soldier can get there.

The virgin birth is clearly an attempt to dress up a bastard as something, anything but.

The biggest insult to humanity has been the trope of the protagonist of auspicious birth.

And this myth robs us of balm against such lies against people of common birth.

The bible narrative says 'the meek shall inherit the earth' etc..

 

[Jarhyn]

"Jesus never existed" is damage to the message.

No it isn't. "Kelsier never existed" does not damage get "mistborn".

"Ged never existed" does not damage Earthsea.

"Jesus never existed" does not damage the bible.

You don't inspire the bastard sons of a nation to rise up unless you can get the bastard sons of a nation to rise up!

The Auspicious Birth is a trope designed to make most people think that they are not the protagonist, and never can be, and directly insults any approach towards the availability of enlightenment.

It is in so many words a statement "they managed to understand this, but it is not something someone so low as you may achieve without their vaunted help".

Spare me the patronization there.

 

[dbz]

The bible narrative says 'the meek shall inherit the earth' etc..

Paul says that Jesus, in obedience (FAITH) to first-god, relinquished the perfection of the heavenly realm and humbled himself. The message is that Jesus suffered and that for those with FAITH—the dead do not die per se.

• Passion: to carry or bear a burdon​

from Latin passiō, ultimately from patior. Cognate with patience.
from Greek pathós (παθός) someone who experienced or underwent something e.g. an agony (a word originaly meaning: competition, battle).

• The education featured in the agōgē (ἀγωγά) involved cultivating loyalty to Sparta and paidagōgíā (παιδᾰγωγῐ́ᾱ ) through pain tolerance.

 

[abaddon]

"Jesus never existed" is damage to the message.

No it isn't.

I agree.

Lately I've seen Christianity in a more charitable light than I used to, by ignoring literal-minded interpretations and keeping in mind that at least the mystics within the tradition are talking about the qualitative feel of headspace. For them "heaven" is THIS world seen with new eyes.

When I bring that POV to the religion's scriptures, instead of taking the fundy's interpretation as authoritative, the stories stop being some blah-blah about alleged historical events and start making sense and become meaningful... AS MYTHS.

Rationalists, looking for a little reality in the tales and believing that means finding some history in them, make themselves prosaic dolts alongside the fundies. "Well, we can assume the 'walking on water' episode is based on a *real* event. Jesus stepped into shallow water, and then later someone exaggerated about it". FFS Somebody walking on water is a myth's way of saying "this is a tale about transcendence of conventional reality (rather than about that conventional reality)".

 

[dbz]

Lately I've seen Christianity in a more charitable light than I used to, by ignoring literal-minded interpretations and keeping in mind that at least the mystics within the tradition are talking about the qualitative feel of headspace. For them "heaven" is THIS world seen with new eyes.

We all recognize the duality of a straight razor for grooming or bloodletting. And we all recognize that it is inadvisable to give a straight razor to an emotionally unstable human for their own personal grooming.

Given the emotionally unstable human desire of many in power to bring about the END of the world, why hand them a razor?