The Christ Myth Theory

[Unknown Soldier]

It's not important to me from a personal point of view, since Christianity is not more likely true if Jesus existed. It's all just ancient superstition however you paint the portrait of Jesus, mythical or historical.

^This.

It seems like a completely pointless discussion of things we do not, and probably never can have, sufficient evidence to determine;

Well, at the very least this discussion can help us conclude that we lack convincing evidence for the historicity of Jesus and likely never will have such evidence. That's an important point right there. Other important points involve what we do or do not know about figures from antiquity and what impact that kind of knowledge has on modern religious beliefs. So I must respectfully disagree that this discussion is pointless.

And even if we were able to find such evidence, it would have exactly zero impact on anything at all.

Again, I must disagree. It's not hard to imagine evidence that can prove whether Jesus existed or not. A discovery of a "Jesus scroll", for instance, written by a Greek trader doing business in early first-century Judea describing either a real Jesus or documenting his fabrication would essentially clinch the case for or against the historicity of Jesus. Evidence like that would make a huge difference for both Christian faith and Biblical studies.

Finding out that there really was a reporter for a major newspaper in the twentieth century called Clark Kent, who was adopted as a baby by a mid-western farming couple, and had colleagues called Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, would be of very minor interest. Nothing about such a discovery would really matter.

That would matter to me! It would be an amazing coincidence that a real Clark Kent existed.

Now, proof that a person could leap tall buildings in a single bound, was more powerful than a locomotive, or was faster than a speeding bullet: That would be interesting. But such proof would remain interesting whether or not there was a real Clark Kent.

If millions of people believed in a real Superman, proof of his existence would be very important to them. The same goes for Jesus.

Jesus historicism or mythicism is futile. There were people in Nazareth in the first century CE. Some were undoubtedly carpenters. Did one such have a son called Jesus? Who cares?

I care. In fact, I think it's important to understand how a real Jewish carpenter named Jesus living in the first century who got crucified by the Romans is very historically plausible. It's perhaps even more important that more than one man can fit this description because Christian faith must have only one. If there were historical Jesuses (plural), then which one of them if any was the Jesus of Christian faith?

There were doubtless plenty of mid-western farmers called Kent in the early twentieth century, and it would be unremarkable if one had adopted an infant. That doesn’t add or subtract anything from the Superman stories.

You are obviously borrowing the "Superman analogy" from Robert Price. Price uses that analogy not to argue that the historicity of Jesus is unimportant but that scholars err when they try to strip Jesus of his "super powers" to make him seem more historical. In the same way that it's absurd to strip Superman of his supposed powers to try to arrive at a historical Clark Kent, it's absurd to strip Christ of his supposed powers to try to arrive at a historical Jesus.

 

[bilby]

You are obviously borrowing the "Superman analogy" from Robert Price.

Nope. It's just a very obvious analogy. Unless Robert Price posts (or used to post) here, I have never read his work.

 

[dbz]

Additional topical commentary, with the last to date being: dbz says October 8, 2022 per "'Deciphering The Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed' review: Chapter Seven". Geeky Humanist. 2 September 2022.

R. G. Price writes,

My book is still a ways from being completed. Every time I think I’m close I realize I need to make some revisions. I’ve actually got quite a bit to re-work at this point. It will be at least a year. I do have a working title, but I’m not going to reveal it at this point. My current ToC is below, but its going to need to change, especially from Proto-Christianity on down:
Preface 5
Introduction 6
Setting the Stage 10
The Record and Practice of Ancient Prophecy 17
Orpheus the Sibyls and other Legendary Prophets 29
Orpheus 29
Other Orphic prophets 33
The Sibyls 36
Sibylline Texts 37
Who were the Sibyls? 43
Summary 53
Rome Through the Eyes of Prophecy 54
Historical overview 55
Roman prophecy from the Late Republic to the dawn of Christianity 58
The Development of Judaism to Roman Times 82
Archaeology of ancient Israel and origins of Judaism 83
Creation of the Torah and Deuteronomistic History 96
Evangelical Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman era 103
Histories and treatise 105
Letters and testimonials 117
Stories: fictional and pseudo-historical 122
Prophetic forgeries 131
Proselytization and emigration 138
Jewish governance in the Hellenistic and early Roman era 147
Roman support 153
Roman rule 155
Revolt and Destruction 160
Summary 163
Proto-Christianity and Jewish Millenarianism 166
Qumran 166
Scriptural reinterpretation – pesher 167
Parables and mysteries 172
Melchezedeck 175
The Second God 176
Gnostics 180
Enoch 187
Theos Hypsistos and God-fearers 189
Proto-Christian Stories 192
Joseph and Aseneth 193
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 198
Jewish Millenarianism 203
Summary 211
Paul, Marcion and Philo 213
Paul’s Letters 214
Marcion and Marcionism 218
The Servant, the Lord, and the Logos 222
The Assembly of God 230
The Theology of Paul 231
Persecution and Circumcision 238
Faith in the Resurrection 246
Forgery in the name of Paul and others 252
The disputed letters of Paul 253
The Letter of James 258
The Letter of Jude 264
First Peter 266
Second Peter 266
Letters of John 269
Conclusions 271
Acts of the Apostles 272
Development of the Gospels 285
The First Gospel – How Paul Became Jesus 286
Mark’s use of Paul and the scriptures 288
Mark and Acts 299
Mark and Paul – the big picture 308
Mark’s use of Philo 312
Markan Conclusion 319
Matthew, Marcion and Luke 322
Luke’s Appropriation of Marcion 326
Luke’s opposition to Marcionism 335
Marcion’s Gospel – Jesus the Teacher 338
Matthew Anti-Marcion Supreme 350
The Gospel of Apelles/John 350
Conclusions 350
Development and Adoption of Roman Christianity 350
Putting it all Together 350

Does anyone else supports his revisionism…?
None specified, but perhaps supportive .. The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever by Nicholas Peter Legh Allen.

Some words of wisdom by mlinssen,

[T]here is nothing wrong with a Jesus narrative that ends with him being killed by his Nemesis, his sworn enemies.
It is a perfect ending to a perfect story, aimed at doing maximum damage to Judaism while propelling their own story of a better religion, a better way, a better protagonist. Not a god for sure, no – but perhaps neither an ordinary man.
We will never find a historical Jesus, and even if we do he will be nothing but a faint shadow of the NT Jesus: just a man speaking sayings, that’s all.
And those sayings we already have. Mutilated, falsified by Christian liars as usual – and now all of that has been undone, and the sayings are revealed, and true
What more do you need, really? More opinions by others?
It is clear how the story started, we also know what it turned into.
Majority opinion is not the way out of this.

Also

• "Why People Don't Understand Mythicism? MUST WATCH!". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. Oct 9, 2022

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, at the very least this discussion can help us conclude that we lack convincing evidence for the historicity of Jesus and likely never will have such evidence. That's an important point right there. Other important points involve what we do or do not know about figures from antiquity and what impact that kind of knowledge has on modern religious beliefs. So I must respectfully disagree that this discussion is pointless.

The gospel Jesus is indeed a myth. Only the most credulous and uninformed person would believe that person is historical. Thus the question has always been to define the historical Jesus using evidence and argument. Therefore the discussion is far from pointless.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

• "Why People Don't Understand Mythicism? MUST WATCH!". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. Oct 9, 2022

Excellent video. Carrier is full of information about the ancient world and how people understood stories about heroes such as we have with Mark's story of Jesus. If I wasn't a complete mythicist before watching this video I certainly am now.

 

[dbz]

Hoffmann, R. Joseph, ed. Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth. (Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2010) is a useful (but not great) anthology of mythicists as well as scholars who are more or less agnostic on the question. It includes papers by Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price and Dennis R. MacDonald, as well as R. Joseph Hoffmann, Justin Meggitt, Bruce Chilton, David Trobisch, Frank R. Zindler, Robert Eisenman with Noelle Magana, Ronald A. Lindsay, Gerd Lüdemann and J. Harold Ellens.
My favorite is the last. Ellens published a slightly different and expanded version of the same essay as:Ellens, J. Harold. Jesus as The Son of Man, the Literary Character: A Progression of Images. Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 2003.Full text is freely available at the Open Access Digital Theological Library: https://opendigtheolib.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1155090049
Ellens' first paragraph is:

As we know him from the New Testament and other early Christian literature, Jesus is a literary character, not an historical character. That does not mean that he was not a real figure in time. It does not mean that there was no person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth about two thousand years ago. Nor does it mean that he did not do the things the gospels tell us he did. It means only that the figure in the narrative is a character in a story. It means that we cannot get behind the story to find the historic man. We can only try to know and appreciate the character in the drama that the literature about him portrays. We cannot determine the degree to which the character in the story corresponds to a man who once lived in Galilee, or the degree to which the early Christian stories about what he did and said correspond to what he really did and said.

Connect1Affect7 · 4 days ago per "Are there any major claims popular among Jesus Mythicists with broad scholarly consensus?". r/AcademicBiblical. 12 October 2022.

 

[dbz]

Excellent video. Carrier is full of information about the ancient world and how people understood stories about heroes such as we have with Mark's story of Jesus. If I wasn't a complete mythicist before watching this video I certainly am now.

In 1846 Ignaz Semmelweis hypothesized that cadaverous particles (little pieces from a human corpse) were getting on doctors hands from the cadavers they dissected. And when they delivered babies, these particles would get inside the women who would develop disease and die.

• Nobody listened or believed

Not to long ago the prevailing theory was that flammable materials contained a substance called “phlogiston” (from the Greek word for burn) that was released during combustion. The theory held that when a candle burned, for example, phlogiston was transferred from it to the surrounding air.

• Everybody listened and believed

Godfrey, Neil (18 October 2018). "The Phlogiston Jesus". Vridar. "There is nothing mysterious or even unusual about scholars debating all sorts of models and theories about something they have long assumed to have been real or existed, only for later generations to realize that their different reconstructions were all built on a false premise."

[C]redible historical scholarship is virtually unanimous in acknowledging Jesus was, beyond all reasonable doubt, a genuine historical figure. There is no credible scholarship claiming he was really Osiris, or Dionysius, or Mythras, or that he was a purely spiritual being, or that, as Franklin Veaux claims, he was an amalgamation of other figures. These are pseudohistorical fringe theories (and many of them truly on the lunatic fringe), not credible history. Whether Jesus was the son of God or had the power to raise the dead is a whole other issue. Historians acknowledge the existence of Jesus as a human being, not an incarnation of God, but that doesn't change the fact that such a human being clearly existed.

Historians - real credible historians working in communities of experts - accept Jesus was a real historical figure. Bart D. Ehrman
, who really is one of the world's leading Biblical scholars as well as an agnostic atheist, has compared Christ myth theories unfavourably to creationism. There is doubt that Jesus existed in antitheist echo chambers and on the far academic fringe where it escapes proper scrutiny. There is no credible doubt Jesus existed.

Andy Kaminski (June 25, 2022). "Is it true that there is doubt that Jesus ever existed?". Quora.

If it’s really me that's stupid and brainwashed and gullible then it should be really easy to find a single qualified, tenured historian at any properly accredited University on Earth that agrees with whatever you are proposing. Just one. Because the idea that I'm stupid and brainwashed and gullible for agreeing with an absolute consensus of credible experts regardless of their religious affiliation, whilst you're a brilliant skeptic and critical thinker for agreeing with anti-religious amateurs saying stuff that appeals to your prejudices sounds a bit far fetched to me. It's not really passing that ‘critical thinker’ smell test.

Andy Kaminski (June 25, 2022). "Is it true that there is doubt that Jesus ever existed?". Quora.

 

[dbz]

Bill August 27, 2022

I really wish you would stop saying “historians need to,” because most of the people you are criticizing are not historians! Why not say something like, “scholars who are working on the history of early Christianity?”

Richard Carrier August 27, 2022

Well, if someone is not a historian, they don’t have a say in this debate. Because this is a debate about history. So either someone is claiming to be a historian, and thus ought to act like one, or they are admitting they are not a historian, and we get to dismiss their opinions as amateur and therefore irrelevant.

Bill August 27, 2022

I think it would strengthen your argument if you created a blog post that listed those with a PhD in history since say 1970 (from a secular university) who wrote at least one peer-reviewed book in favor of historicity. Or are there any?

Richard Carrier August 28, 2022

There has never been a peer reviewed book defending historicity (as opposed to presuming historicity) for about a hundred years now (last one was Case, 1923: see What I Said at the Brea Conference).

The standard mode has been to throw a couple pages on the issue (if even that) in a book that otherwise defends a particular reconstruction of the historical Jesus (as opposed to writing a book specifically defending historicity); and those couple pages won’t really address the issue, but just straw man century-old arguments against historicity (as an excuse to ignore the position) without attempting any substantive defense of historicity.

Paradigmatic examples: Van Voorst (which I address as a typical example in On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 4-7), who, apart from a very recent exception, devoted the most pages to the subject of any book in a hundred years (a whopping 4); and that most recent exception (at an impressive 24 pages) is M. David Litwa. Whose treatment is so crazy and incompetent it fully illustrates the problem (see Litwa’s Confused Critique of Mythicism).

A much more typical approach is to spend only a few sentences on the subject with nonsense like (and this is an actual quote, from E.P. Sanders) “the sources for Jesus are better” than “those that deal with Alexander” the Great, and ‘therefore’ the subject needn’t be discussed and we can go on with presuming Jesus existed.

Carrier (27 August 2022). "Empirical Logic and Romans 1:3" §. Comments. Richard Carrier Blogs.​

N.B. #595 above for the "Function of Peer Review in History".

 

[dbz]

"What Can We Know About The Historical Jesus? | Paula Fredriksen PhD". @time:00:04:05 YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 15 October 2022.

[4:30] I'm sure he was crucified. The firmest fact we have about Jesus's life—is [his] death. I mean Paul is talking about Jesus being crucified, the gospels also talk about Jesus being crucified and here's where Josephus counts as sort of the "Fifth Gospel".

Josephus talks about the Romans having a crucifixion habit all throughout this period of Judean history. So the idea of somebody who's a charismatic prophet, who ends up with a popular following being cut down by Rome —is something that Josephus talks about repeatedly. If you put if you put the gospel stories and Paul against the wallpaper of Josephus, I think that's a pretty good way to triangulate back into the historical figure... [5:20]

YES! Paul reports that his second-god's human-flesh-suit was ruptured and poured out human-blood on BOTH historicity and ahistoricity. Paul "knew" that his second-god was wearing a human-flesh-suit .. the ONLY question is where Paul "knew" this occurred.

"Why People Don't Understand Mythicism? MUST WATCH!". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. Oct 9, 2022

[7:31] ...when we're reading the letters of Paul, is he talking about events that they believed occurred on earth or is he talking about events that he believed occurred somewhere else... [7:41]

---

[...I] devote a chapter in JFOS to outlining how Christianity could have evolved from a revelatory religion to a historicizing one and how the timeline of evidence supports that very transition. In the process, I demonstrate that there is no pertinent difference between accepting this happened for Jesus altogether and accepting it happened for his post-mortem imaginary counterpart, “the risen Jesus,” who began solely in isolated, private dreams or visions (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1). However, by the end of the first century, the only version of the risen Jesus promoted or even mentioned is a physically reanimated corpse who hung out with the Apostles for weeks at dinner parties (John 20-21; Acts 1). If a historical, post-mortem Jesus could be invented and eclipse the original in so short a time so could a historical pre-mortem Jesus. The process would be the same.
[...]
I propose that any Jesus scholar pose a serious question to himself: are you going to maintain your assumptions without ever examining the facts that challenge them, or are you going to actually confront and consider those facts before deciding what to conclude? You should not allow institutional inertia, academic pride, social pressure, or Christian faith to motivate your avoiding the actual evidence and arguments presented for this theory. Instead of reacting as other critics have done and producing rebuttals that don’t even represent the actual evidence and arguments made and thus never respond to them, it is high time scholars did their jobs—take the evidence and arguments seriously and actually respond to them, rather than avoid or misrepresent them. I hope that Jesus from Outer Space will help motivate more scholars to do that.

Carrier, Richard (2020). "Jesus from Outer Space?". The Bible and Interpretation.​

 

[bilby]

Not to long ago the prevailing theory was that flammable materials contained a substance called “phlogiston” (from the Greek word for burn) that was released during combustion. The theory held that when a candle burned, for example, phlogiston was transferred from it to the surrounding air.

• Everybody listened and believed

And so they should. Phlogiston is a real substance, with a demonstrated mass of -32g/mol.

Substances with negative mass are generally ignored, but there's no particular reason, other than to simplify things a bit.

Alright, a lot.

 

[Learner]

• "Why People Don't Understand Mythicism? MUST WATCH!". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. Oct 9, 2022

Excellent video. Carrier is full of information about the ancient world and how people understood stories about heroes such as we have with Mark's story of Jesus. If I wasn't a complete mythicist before watching this video I certainly am now.

Had a quick sneak and watched the first few minutes. I see... there's "3 or more possible ways" each has it's own unique angle depending on which part of the story narrative it relates to. A good start so far, from my view.

 

[steve_bank]

What you don't know interpret or make up.


Studies have shown when people are given text to read with incomplete information and are queried many will fill in the blanks without even being aware of it.

 

[Learner]

What you don't know interpret or make up.

Applicable to both atheists and religious people.

Studies have shown when people are given text to read with incomplete information and are queried many will fill in the blanks without even being aware of it.

I agree these things do happen. However.... there are people who try to do better, like for example...

... approaching bits of information with the methods similar to, lets say, the criminologist. A study of multi- disciplines, e.g., ethical human behavior, social anthropology, psychology, and all the other characteristics and aspects of man, that's comparatively relatable, to analyze and make some reasoned, reasonable judgments.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Had a quick sneak and watched the first few minutes. I see... there's "3 or more possible ways" each has it's own unique angle depending on which part of the story narrative it relates to. A good start so far, from my view.

You owe it to yourself to watch the entire video. It isn't long. The biggest takeaway is how we anachronize. The people living and writing at the time didn't have the knowledge and information we have today. Think about that for a moment. They didn't know what the moon was. Think about that for a moment. They believed in literally seven heavens. Have you ever read Plutarch's "Life of Romulus?" Carrier makes an excellent case for Christ mythicism by presenting Mark's Gospel in this light.

 

[steve_bank]

What you don't know interpret or make up.

Applicable to both atheists and religious people.

Studies have shown when people are given text to read with incomplete information and are queried many will fill in the blanks without even being aware of it.

I agree these things do happen. However.... there are people who try to do better, like for example...

... approaching bits of information with the methods similar to, lets say, the criminologist. A study of multi- disciplines, e.g., ethical human behavior, social anthropology, psychology, and all the other characteristics and aspects of man, that's comparatively relatable, to analyze and make some reasoned, reasonable judgments.

Jesus as the image is today is the product of 2000 years of human imagination.

Th European Christ and that of American white Chrtians is blonde haired, pocealain white skin, and blue eyes.


Not like any historical Jesus of the day.

Atheists do the same?

I and others speculate who a flesh and blood Jesus as a source for the story might have been knowing the context of the geopolitics of the day.

When I was a kid in in the 60s in the home of a black family I saw a painting of a black Jesus on the wall. I was too young then to understand the significance.

Racial features of Buddha images vary with culture.

Jesus is whatever you want and need him to be. I'd say the sparse evidence for Jesus is part of the appeal. Imagination takes over nd creates the personal image.

The bible god is a reelection of the ancient male misogynistic family patriarch.

 

[Learner]

Had a quick sneak and watched the first few minutes. I see... there's "3 or more possible ways" each has it's own unique angle depending on which part of the story narrative it relates to. A good start so far, from my view.

You owe it to yourself to watch the entire video. It isn't long. The biggest takeaway is how we anachronize. The people living and writing at the time didn't have the knowledge and information we have today. Think about that for a moment. They didn't know what the moon was. Think about that for a moment. They believed in literally seven heavens. Have you ever read Plutarch's "Life of Romulus?" Carrier makes an excellent case for Christ mythicism by presenting Mark's Gospel in this light.

Cheers for the recommendations. I will just do that.

 

[Learner]

What you don't know interpret or make up.

Applicable to both atheists and religious people.

Studies have shown when people are given text to read with incomplete information and are queried many will fill in the blanks without even being aware of it.

I agree these things do happen. However.... there are people who try to do better, like for example...

... approaching bits of information with the methods similar to, lets say, the criminologist. A study of multi- disciplines, e.g., ethical human behavior, social anthropology, psychology, and all the other characteristics and aspects of man, that's comparatively relatable, to analyze and make some reasoned, reasonable judgments.

Jesus as the image is today is the product of 2000 years of human imagination.

Th European Christ and that of American white Chrtians is blonde haired, pocealain white skin, and blue eyes. Not like any historical Jesus of the day.

.I and others speculate who a flesh and blood Jesus as a source for the story might have been knowing the context of the geopolitics of the day.

When I was a kid in in the 60s in the home of a black family I saw a painting of a black Jesus on the wall. I was too young then to understand the significance.

Racial features of Buddha images vary with culture.

Those blue eyed depictions meant to represent Jesus, as seen in churches just doesn't have any influential effect on the Gospels at all!

For one, I have never heard this to be a focus for teaching.... to be preached or taught throughout my life time. I haven't been affected by any of those images, so henceforth the reason why I don't take to Jesus being blond and blue-eyed either.

Atheists do the same?

Jesus is whatever you want and need him to be. I'd say the sparse evidence for Jesus is part of the appeal. Imagination takes over nd creates the personal image.

The bible god is a reelection of the ancient male misogynistic family patriarch.

Yes they do the same, as I see it... similar to the misrepresentation I highlighted in the above line in bold.

 

[steve_bank]

It does matter.

Especially in the USA Jesus was for whites, no one else need apply. Evidenced by the histry of American Christianity. Probably the Brits as well. Of course there are exceptions and some Christians cross boundaries.

Before the Reformation in Europe the RCC told you what Jesus is and what it means to be a Christian. A priest was the mediator between you and Jesus or god. Along came the Reformation and anyone could read and interpret scripture without an overarching theology and the need for a priest.

That opened the door to Christianity today where a Christian is anyone who says they are a Chrtistian.

Black Christianity as evolved during slavery is very different in attitude and meaning.

Jesus is who and what you need him to be.

As Christians do in your last post with the scant information about Jesus you expand at length what it is to YOU. That is human imagination and invention.

It is a debate over nothing really. One ends up arguing inerpretaions rather than authenticity.

 

[dbz]

As Christians do in your last post with the scant information about Jesus you expand at length what it is to YOU. That is human imagination and invention.

It is a debate over nothing really. One ends up arguing interpretations rather than authenticity.

• Given: Humans (on a bell curve) have a hardwired: morality engine and a language engine.

Per "interpretations rather than authenticity", I am not sure that anything is "authentic" per se when it comes to religion and morality. It is possible that we selectively supply "input data" to the next generation's hardwired morality engine via selective "proper" literature and history; "dogmatic" facts; folktales; mythology; memes; etc.. As far as evolutionary psychology is concerned, all that matters is inferior and superior optimizations for survival and reproduction at different granularity levels viz. species/in-out groups/kinship/individual which are all susceptible to Nash equilibrium and other factors that alter optimizations in survival and reproduction.

 

[steve_bank]

By authenticity I mean proof of existence.

In a high school Latin class we read Caesar's Gallic Wars. There are multiple contemporaneous sources and images that attest to his actually lived.

There are no contemporaneous reports of Buddha, only anecdotal stories. The first assembled writings appeared a century or two after he allegedly lived.