dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 480
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
-
Features
The Christ Myth Theory
- Thread starter 1Heidegger1!
- Start date
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
So even if there was a charismatic or militant cult leader with a following, how is that relevant to the fantasy stories in the gospel tales? Whoever penned these tales knew about cults, their leaders and followers and was inspired to write a story. That hardly makes for an HJ anymore than any novel is the inspiration of an author based on that author's experiences.
I find it particularly telling that this constitutes "Historicity" among many scholars. It doesn't. Rather it demonstrates a high level of historical and literary illiteracy which is unfortunate but understandable given the liturgical and cultural constraints they are up against.
I find it particularly telling that this constitutes "Historicity" among many scholars. It doesn't. Rather it demonstrates a high level of historical and literary illiteracy which is unfortunate but understandable given the liturgical and cultural constraints they are up against.
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 480
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
"Book Talk with Robyn Walsh: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture". YouTube. UMHumanities. 18 October 2021. Videos produced by the College of Arts and Sciences Center for the Humanities at the University of Miami. Series include our Book Talks, Insight Tracks, and Roundtable discussions during conferences and symposia.
- "Robyn Walsh, 'The Origins of Early Christian Literature'". YouTube. Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge. 21 March 2022.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Richard Carrier's evidence that Jesus did miracles
Maybe the best evidence for the miracles of Jesus comes from the mythicists themselves. This is because of the poor examples they give to try to prove that there are many other miracle legends similar to Jesus, usually prior to Jesus and playing a role in causing someone to invent Jesus as a new myth based on the earlier tradition. And since it's agreed that these must all be fictional, that's supposed to prove that the Jesus miracle legend must also be fictional. And to prove this theory they give examples which are pathetic and clearly not comparable to the historical Jesus example.
Because they are determined to disprove the Jesus example, if it's possible, we can assume these mythicists would provide the best possible examples of parallels to Jesus ("parallels" = other miracle legends similar to the Jesus case), so that if there are good parallels to Jesus in the ancient pre-Christian culture, these mythicists -- e.g., like Carrier and others -- are perhaps the best source for them. And if we find that their examples fall flat, as very poor in showing similarity to Jesus, it tells us that there really are no legitimate parallels to Jesus in the ancient culture of myths which shed any light on the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker.
(Here I'm starting at the beginning of Carrier's book, On the Historicity of Jesus, and I'll just take each argument as it comes up there, one argument at a time, to keep it simple. If I'm missing something he argues later in the book, and which refutes me, I'll worry about it when I get there -- if you're familiar with his arguments, you can point it out. For now I'm too impatient to wait 'til I've gone through the whole book. I won't be able to give page numbers, because I'm relying on an audiobook version, so I'll only cite the chapters as given in the audio version.)
What other historical figures must be eliminated as "fictional"?
At the outset, a question which must be answered but is not answered by Carrier, is: What other historical characters must be removed from the category of fact to the category of fiction? That he names King Arthur and a couple others is no serious answer, because these are too easy. What other commonly-recognized historical figures have to be removed? The majority of ancient history characters have less attestation, in the literature of their time, than we have for Jesus in the 1st century. Thousands of known characters would have to be eliminated as fictional, if we apply the same standard to them as the mythicists are applying to Jesus in the 1st century.
Maybe this point comes up later. For now, a major problem which mythicists seem unable to address is that of the many additional historical characters they must throw out of the historical record, if they're serious and want to be consistent, by applying the same critical standards to them as they are applying to the 1st-century Jesus character. Because there are certainly hundreds of cases of historical figures for whom the written sources are doubtful and about whom it's very difficult to corroborate the details of their lives. Even if Jesus is a more serious problem than average, there are many others also which are equally doubtful or worse, due to lack of adequate sources and discrepancies and dating problems. They don't solve this problem by just citing King Arthur and William Tell and a few other high-profile cases. Those extreme cases are clearly far worse than that of Jesus. We're talking here about expunging from history probably hundreds, and casting serious doubt onto even thousands more historical characters we've always assumed really existed.
But a further unanswered question is: Do you know for sure that King Arthur and the others were fictional? We know some things for sure, in the sense that there's too much evidence to reasonably deny it. Do we have such examples of known cases, from among recognized historical figures in the literature, which shows clearly that they did not really exist?
There can't be only this one example. Or only this 1st-century Jesus and also King Arthur, and also Ned Ludd (another example Carrier offers). We need a good list of them, and then we need to ask: Do you really know, i.e., is the evidence abundant that they really did not exist, so that most historians have declared that they did not really exist?
What's more likely is that there's only doubt, maybe much doubt, and most historians leave it at that, saying probably or maybe they're only fiction but we really don't know for sure. Of course individually certain historians will say it definitely, but others leave it in the doubtful category.
The point is this: We have real examples, which we know for sure, of legend figures, including miracle heroes, who we know for sure did exist, originally as non-miracle figures, and then were later mythologized into something miraculous. An obvious example is St. Nicholas. And there are many others, hundreds, even thousands -- all known to have existed as real persons and then were later mythologized into something miraculous. The number of these definite cases is vastly greater than the number of fiction characters once thought to have been historical.
We have virtually no cases where we know the legend hero was originally fiction (other than characters in fiction novels, presented as fiction), and then later were "historicized" into presumed real historical characters.
There are virtually no examples of this which can be given, or at best only a dozen, a very small number. I.e., cases where it's known for certain that the character was originally fiction only, existed only in a fiction story and only later was converted into a historical character recognized as real.
If there are such cases, let's have them. It's not true for the pagan deities, all of which might have originally been real historical figures and later got their fiction features added to their story which made them into the later miracle myth figure. Of course there are popular legends we know are different than the original historical figure. But that original figure really did exist, before the miracle legend developed. We KNOW this is the case for many of them, i.e., thousands of them, without doubt.
But we do NOT know this about the fiction legends which occurred FIRST, before the historical figure emerged as someone believed to be real. In other words, we really have no clear-cut examples of the Carrier mythicist claims of hero legends which originated as fictional characters and later became historicized, such as they claim a fictional Jesus is historicized in the Gospel accounts.
Can you name any such examples? Possibly a tiny few, like Ned Ludd and William Tell? And yet it's not clear that even these were believed to be real, in a serious way. There was always doubt, even when the legends were popular.
So it's not clear that this is a legitimate category of quasi-historical characters, who were really fiction only while believed to be real persons in history, having become recognized as real only later after the earlier time when only the fiction story existed and was not believed. It's questionable that any such category really ever existed. But if it really is a legitimate category, it's clear that it's a very tiny category at best, with almost no examples anyone can identify. Of course you can toss virtually any historical figure you don't like into this category, on your own. But it's not an objectively-established category recognized by everyone and containing recognized cases of such characters which most historians agree belong in the category, while also agreeing on the others not in it.
That Carrier and mythicists must create this artificial category of quasi-historical figures who really started out as fiction, is actually an indicator, or further evidence, that they cannot explain the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker but are bamboozled by this historical figure, and so must resort to such hysteria as this in order to get Jesus into a category they can handle. Because the plain facts show that he was unique and had some connection to superhuman power which is politically incorrect today, and so these political-correctness overseers have to scramble to find a way to put him someplace to get him out of their hair.
Have historians ever proposed this category before -- i.e., category of mythical historical figures who never really existed but originated as fiction characters -- before they faced the problem of where to put the historical Jesus? Where do we see this special category of historical characters other than in dealing with the problem of what to do with the Jesus miracle-worker of the 1st century? Why does a whole new category of historiography have to be invented only in order to deal with this one character in history which they can't figure out what to do with?
More serious arguments are that of Jesus parallels = some other reputed miracle-workers who were probably fiction -- (cases of a "savior" or "miracle-worker" or "messiah" type hero who was similar to Jesus, or comparable, and yet who is known to be someone mythologized into a fictional legend, or a product of a cult of disciples who made up stories about their guru, etc.). This approach argues that we can discount the miracles of Jesus just as we discount these other cases. Carrier gives parallels early, in audiobook chapters 2 and 3, and at the beginning of chapter 4.
The term "parallels" is not used by Carrier here, but is used by other mythicists, e.g., Robert Price. Carrier's main terminology is
"mythicist" = one who believes the fiction was invented first, and this later was "historicized" into alleged fact;
"historicist" = one who believes the core facts came first, from which fiction later evolved, or fictions were added in the form of later mythologizing. (Or, e.g., Jesus in the Gospels is mostly fact, but it's admitted that some later fiction could have been added, which does not negate the basic Christ of faith, who is substantially historical and factual.)
And "legend" here means the eventual standard story which might be partly fact mixed with fiction (thus not necessarily 100% fiction even though termed "legend").
Now a listing of the earliest-mentioned parallel Jesus characters
parallel example: Alexander the Great
He proves that we have more evidence for Alexander than we have for Jesus. But that's true for probably 99% of all our ancient history characters who we know existed -- the evidence for them is less than for Alexander. And so what? We don't need absolute proof that the characters existed in order to reasonably conclude that they probably existed, as we normally assume. The evidence that Jesus existed is greater than for most (but not all) of our ancient historical figures who we assume existed. The serious question is not whether they existed, but what they really did as opposed to the fiction -- i.e., the fact vs. fiction. And in some cases the fiction admittedly outweighs the fact -- maybe many cases.
What about the Alexander example? Of course he existed, but he's worthless as a Jesus-parallel miracle-worker, because it's far too easy to explain how Alexander was mythologized into a miracle legend in comparison to others who were not mythologized: Alexander was a vastly famous and powerful military hero with a widespread reputation, recognized by millions of subjects who worshiped him because of his great power and his exploits as a talented warrior. That some of his story got exaggerated into something superhuman is no surprise whatever -- it's easy to explain how someone so famous and powerful would easily get turned into a miracle deity of some kind, with so many admirers who are ready to believe anything that embellishes the hero's reputation.
By comparison, Jesus was not famous, had no political power, had only a few hundred followers at most (maybe only dozens), during his lifetime. There's absolutely no comparison to a famous celebrity like Alexander the Great (i.e., famous in his time, in comparison to Jesus who had no fame during his time, about 30 AD).
It's true in such a unique case as Alexander that even during his lifetime there could emerge some miracle claims about him, about his divine status, his divine birth, etc. But none of that can explain how Jesus subsequently came to be a reputed miracle-worker in a short time -- in 20-70 years -- totally uncharacteristic of the ancient miracle-workers, such as the pagan heroes, whose legends emerged only after many centuries of storytelling.
There's also a small amount of this miracle myth-making in other high-profile cases, like Julius Caesar and Roman emperors like Augustus and Vespasian. But none of these, including Alexander, were mythologized into any kind of miracle-worker such as we see described in the Gospel accounts, where Jesus is described on page after page doing the miracle healing acts, raising the dead, etc., and finally rising from his grave and being seen alive by witnesses who had seen him killed a few days earlier.
Nothing in the few miracle legends of the politically powerful and popular military commanders can explain how Jesus got promoted to the miracle Son-of-God status -- except to show that a miracle myth or two can emerge early in rare cases of a hero figure being widely-enough recognized by millions, without the myth requiring centuries to develop in the normal fashion of pagan gods like Apollo or heroes like Hercules, etc. This standard mythologizing process cannot explain the case of Jesus who did not have the prerequisite status which could promote him into an instant miracle legend such as Alexander or Julius Caesar and perhaps a half-dozen others who were powerful celebrity figures in their time period.
Something much different must have happened in the case of Jesus in order for him to get put into this miracle legend category such that we have the unusual barrage of miracles attributed to him in the sources which sets him far above all the other miracle characters in the ancient legends.
Parallel example: Ned Ludd
What about someone who was not a powerful famous military hero-celebrity? Groping around trying to find some such case, Carrier offers the example of Ned Ludd, the mythical founder of the 1800 Luddite movement. And he claims: "Ah, you see, here's a case of an instant legend, which proves that a myth or legend can emerge in less than a generation or so, turning a nobody into a popular hero" (my paraphrase). But this pathetic example refutes him again, giving further evidence for the Jesus miracles, because the Ludd legend is not about a miracle-worker. Why is it that the only example someone can offer is of a legend having nothing to do with miracle acts?
We're not talking about just any instant falsehood or fiction story popping up. It's about miracle legends, about claims of something supernatural or superhuman which happened. Such stories are irregular and normally disbelieved if they are not part of the ancient religious traditions. The ancients believed no such thing about instant miracle-workers popping up somewhere during their own time. Rather, they believed only the ancient miracles of Zeus and Apollo, etc. Not this new character arriving a few years or decades ago.
It's not true that people just make up miracle stories every day, or believe anything they hear. If it's something normal (non-miracle), maybe they tend to believe it, but not sudden miracle claims, about the dead being raised back to life, or instant healing miracles, which claims were typically rejected by 99.9% of the ancient population, just as they are today. (What's different today is the vast media phenomenon which puts out millions of myths, even billions, constantly, so the number of believers of course is greater.)
It's true that religious people often believe that God healed someone who was sick, especially at religious services, so are seemingly gullible. They pray to their traditional God (or gods), and whenever the victim recovers they pretend that God sent a miracle, and when the victim dies anyway it's forgotten. But hardly ever do these "miracle" recoveries get recorded and published, because everyone knows this is just wishful thinking or well-wishing expressions within the circle of sympathetic family and friends or religious ceremonies. (The Asclepius inscriptions on temple walls are a bit unique, but are still about normal worshipers at their religious services doing the traditional rites to their ancient healing deity. And the large majority of these inscriptions are not about miracle healings, but about normal recoveries, or normal therapies and medical treatments, and only a small minority are in the "miracle" category. No writers cited these inscriptions in their books as evidence of miracles happening to the Asclepius worshipers.)
This normal religious-psychological behavior and culture cannot explain the sudden rash of miracle healing acts we see in the Gospel accounts, all attributed to this one person who generally did not know the victims he cured, who were brought to him in large numbers, unlike any other case of reputed healers in the ancient world. Where is there anything like this in all the ancient literature, of a reputed healer visiting a village so that large numbers of the sick or afflicted are brought before him, and widespread cures done by him are reported? There's nothing even close to this in any other reputed cases, nothing to suggest anything normal about such miracle-workers doing mass healings apart from the temples and routine traditional religious observances.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Maybe the best evidence for the miracles of Jesus comes from the mythicists themselves. This is because of the poor examples they give to try to prove that there are many other miracle legends similar to Jesus, usually prior to Jesus and playing a role in causing someone to invent Jesus as a new myth based on the earlier tradition. And since it's agreed that these must all be fictional, that's supposed to prove that the Jesus miracle legend must also be fictional. And to prove this theory they give examples which are pathetic and clearly not comparable to the historical Jesus example.
Because they are determined to disprove the Jesus example, if it's possible, we can assume these mythicists would provide the best possible examples of parallels to Jesus ("parallels" = other miracle legends similar to the Jesus case), so that if there are good parallels to Jesus in the ancient pre-Christian culture, these mythicists -- e.g., like Carrier and others -- are perhaps the best source for them. And if we find that their examples fall flat, as very poor in showing similarity to Jesus, it tells us that there really are no legitimate parallels to Jesus in the ancient culture of myths which shed any light on the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker.
(Here I'm starting at the beginning of Carrier's book, On the Historicity of Jesus, and I'll just take each argument as it comes up there, one argument at a time, to keep it simple. If I'm missing something he argues later in the book, and which refutes me, I'll worry about it when I get there -- if you're familiar with his arguments, you can point it out. For now I'm too impatient to wait 'til I've gone through the whole book. I won't be able to give page numbers, because I'm relying on an audiobook version, so I'll only cite the chapters as given in the audio version.)
What other historical figures must be eliminated as "fictional"?
At the outset, a question which must be answered but is not answered by Carrier, is: What other historical characters must be removed from the category of fact to the category of fiction? That he names King Arthur and a couple others is no serious answer, because these are too easy. What other commonly-recognized historical figures have to be removed? The majority of ancient history characters have less attestation, in the literature of their time, than we have for Jesus in the 1st century. Thousands of known characters would have to be eliminated as fictional, if we apply the same standard to them as the mythicists are applying to Jesus in the 1st century.
Maybe this point comes up later. For now, a major problem which mythicists seem unable to address is that of the many additional historical characters they must throw out of the historical record, if they're serious and want to be consistent, by applying the same critical standards to them as they are applying to the 1st-century Jesus character. Because there are certainly hundreds of cases of historical figures for whom the written sources are doubtful and about whom it's very difficult to corroborate the details of their lives. Even if Jesus is a more serious problem than average, there are many others also which are equally doubtful or worse, due to lack of adequate sources and discrepancies and dating problems. They don't solve this problem by just citing King Arthur and William Tell and a few other high-profile cases. Those extreme cases are clearly far worse than that of Jesus. We're talking here about expunging from history probably hundreds, and casting serious doubt onto even thousands more historical characters we've always assumed really existed.
But a further unanswered question is: Do you know for sure that King Arthur and the others were fictional? We know some things for sure, in the sense that there's too much evidence to reasonably deny it. Do we have such examples of known cases, from among recognized historical figures in the literature, which shows clearly that they did not really exist?
There can't be only this one example. Or only this 1st-century Jesus and also King Arthur, and also Ned Ludd (another example Carrier offers). We need a good list of them, and then we need to ask: Do you really know, i.e., is the evidence abundant that they really did not exist, so that most historians have declared that they did not really exist?
What's more likely is that there's only doubt, maybe much doubt, and most historians leave it at that, saying probably or maybe they're only fiction but we really don't know for sure. Of course individually certain historians will say it definitely, but others leave it in the doubtful category.
The point is this: We have real examples, which we know for sure, of legend figures, including miracle heroes, who we know for sure did exist, originally as non-miracle figures, and then were later mythologized into something miraculous. An obvious example is St. Nicholas. And there are many others, hundreds, even thousands -- all known to have existed as real persons and then were later mythologized into something miraculous. The number of these definite cases is vastly greater than the number of fiction characters once thought to have been historical.
We have virtually no cases where we know the legend hero was originally fiction (other than characters in fiction novels, presented as fiction), and then later were "historicized" into presumed real historical characters.
There are virtually no examples of this which can be given, or at best only a dozen, a very small number. I.e., cases where it's known for certain that the character was originally fiction only, existed only in a fiction story and only later was converted into a historical character recognized as real.
If there are such cases, let's have them. It's not true for the pagan deities, all of which might have originally been real historical figures and later got their fiction features added to their story which made them into the later miracle myth figure. Of course there are popular legends we know are different than the original historical figure. But that original figure really did exist, before the miracle legend developed. We KNOW this is the case for many of them, i.e., thousands of them, without doubt.
But we do NOT know this about the fiction legends which occurred FIRST, before the historical figure emerged as someone believed to be real. In other words, we really have no clear-cut examples of the Carrier mythicist claims of hero legends which originated as fictional characters and later became historicized, such as they claim a fictional Jesus is historicized in the Gospel accounts.
Can you name any such examples? Possibly a tiny few, like Ned Ludd and William Tell? And yet it's not clear that even these were believed to be real, in a serious way. There was always doubt, even when the legends were popular.
So it's not clear that this is a legitimate category of quasi-historical characters, who were really fiction only while believed to be real persons in history, having become recognized as real only later after the earlier time when only the fiction story existed and was not believed. It's questionable that any such category really ever existed. But if it really is a legitimate category, it's clear that it's a very tiny category at best, with almost no examples anyone can identify. Of course you can toss virtually any historical figure you don't like into this category, on your own. But it's not an objectively-established category recognized by everyone and containing recognized cases of such characters which most historians agree belong in the category, while also agreeing on the others not in it.
That Carrier and mythicists must create this artificial category of quasi-historical figures who really started out as fiction, is actually an indicator, or further evidence, that they cannot explain the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker but are bamboozled by this historical figure, and so must resort to such hysteria as this in order to get Jesus into a category they can handle. Because the plain facts show that he was unique and had some connection to superhuman power which is politically incorrect today, and so these political-correctness overseers have to scramble to find a way to put him someplace to get him out of their hair.
Have historians ever proposed this category before -- i.e., category of mythical historical figures who never really existed but originated as fiction characters -- before they faced the problem of where to put the historical Jesus? Where do we see this special category of historical characters other than in dealing with the problem of what to do with the Jesus miracle-worker of the 1st century? Why does a whole new category of historiography have to be invented only in order to deal with this one character in history which they can't figure out what to do with?
More serious arguments are that of Jesus parallels = some other reputed miracle-workers who were probably fiction -- (cases of a "savior" or "miracle-worker" or "messiah" type hero who was similar to Jesus, or comparable, and yet who is known to be someone mythologized into a fictional legend, or a product of a cult of disciples who made up stories about their guru, etc.). This approach argues that we can discount the miracles of Jesus just as we discount these other cases. Carrier gives parallels early, in audiobook chapters 2 and 3, and at the beginning of chapter 4.
The term "parallels" is not used by Carrier here, but is used by other mythicists, e.g., Robert Price. Carrier's main terminology is
"mythicist" = one who believes the fiction was invented first, and this later was "historicized" into alleged fact;
"historicist" = one who believes the core facts came first, from which fiction later evolved, or fictions were added in the form of later mythologizing. (Or, e.g., Jesus in the Gospels is mostly fact, but it's admitted that some later fiction could have been added, which does not negate the basic Christ of faith, who is substantially historical and factual.)
And "legend" here means the eventual standard story which might be partly fact mixed with fiction (thus not necessarily 100% fiction even though termed "legend").
Now a listing of the earliest-mentioned parallel Jesus characters
parallel example: Alexander the Great
He proves that we have more evidence for Alexander than we have for Jesus. But that's true for probably 99% of all our ancient history characters who we know existed -- the evidence for them is less than for Alexander. And so what? We don't need absolute proof that the characters existed in order to reasonably conclude that they probably existed, as we normally assume. The evidence that Jesus existed is greater than for most (but not all) of our ancient historical figures who we assume existed. The serious question is not whether they existed, but what they really did as opposed to the fiction -- i.e., the fact vs. fiction. And in some cases the fiction admittedly outweighs the fact -- maybe many cases.
What about the Alexander example? Of course he existed, but he's worthless as a Jesus-parallel miracle-worker, because it's far too easy to explain how Alexander was mythologized into a miracle legend in comparison to others who were not mythologized: Alexander was a vastly famous and powerful military hero with a widespread reputation, recognized by millions of subjects who worshiped him because of his great power and his exploits as a talented warrior. That some of his story got exaggerated into something superhuman is no surprise whatever -- it's easy to explain how someone so famous and powerful would easily get turned into a miracle deity of some kind, with so many admirers who are ready to believe anything that embellishes the hero's reputation.
By comparison, Jesus was not famous, had no political power, had only a few hundred followers at most (maybe only dozens), during his lifetime. There's absolutely no comparison to a famous celebrity like Alexander the Great (i.e., famous in his time, in comparison to Jesus who had no fame during his time, about 30 AD).
It's true in such a unique case as Alexander that even during his lifetime there could emerge some miracle claims about him, about his divine status, his divine birth, etc. But none of that can explain how Jesus subsequently came to be a reputed miracle-worker in a short time -- in 20-70 years -- totally uncharacteristic of the ancient miracle-workers, such as the pagan heroes, whose legends emerged only after many centuries of storytelling.
There's also a small amount of this miracle myth-making in other high-profile cases, like Julius Caesar and Roman emperors like Augustus and Vespasian. But none of these, including Alexander, were mythologized into any kind of miracle-worker such as we see described in the Gospel accounts, where Jesus is described on page after page doing the miracle healing acts, raising the dead, etc., and finally rising from his grave and being seen alive by witnesses who had seen him killed a few days earlier.
Nothing in the few miracle legends of the politically powerful and popular military commanders can explain how Jesus got promoted to the miracle Son-of-God status -- except to show that a miracle myth or two can emerge early in rare cases of a hero figure being widely-enough recognized by millions, without the myth requiring centuries to develop in the normal fashion of pagan gods like Apollo or heroes like Hercules, etc. This standard mythologizing process cannot explain the case of Jesus who did not have the prerequisite status which could promote him into an instant miracle legend such as Alexander or Julius Caesar and perhaps a half-dozen others who were powerful celebrity figures in their time period.
Something much different must have happened in the case of Jesus in order for him to get put into this miracle legend category such that we have the unusual barrage of miracles attributed to him in the sources which sets him far above all the other miracle characters in the ancient legends.
Parallel example: Ned Ludd
What about someone who was not a powerful famous military hero-celebrity? Groping around trying to find some such case, Carrier offers the example of Ned Ludd, the mythical founder of the 1800 Luddite movement. And he claims: "Ah, you see, here's a case of an instant legend, which proves that a myth or legend can emerge in less than a generation or so, turning a nobody into a popular hero" (my paraphrase). But this pathetic example refutes him again, giving further evidence for the Jesus miracles, because the Ludd legend is not about a miracle-worker. Why is it that the only example someone can offer is of a legend having nothing to do with miracle acts?
We're not talking about just any instant falsehood or fiction story popping up. It's about miracle legends, about claims of something supernatural or superhuman which happened. Such stories are irregular and normally disbelieved if they are not part of the ancient religious traditions. The ancients believed no such thing about instant miracle-workers popping up somewhere during their own time. Rather, they believed only the ancient miracles of Zeus and Apollo, etc. Not this new character arriving a few years or decades ago.
It's not true that people just make up miracle stories every day, or believe anything they hear. If it's something normal (non-miracle), maybe they tend to believe it, but not sudden miracle claims, about the dead being raised back to life, or instant healing miracles, which claims were typically rejected by 99.9% of the ancient population, just as they are today. (What's different today is the vast media phenomenon which puts out millions of myths, even billions, constantly, so the number of believers of course is greater.)
It's true that religious people often believe that God healed someone who was sick, especially at religious services, so are seemingly gullible. They pray to their traditional God (or gods), and whenever the victim recovers they pretend that God sent a miracle, and when the victim dies anyway it's forgotten. But hardly ever do these "miracle" recoveries get recorded and published, because everyone knows this is just wishful thinking or well-wishing expressions within the circle of sympathetic family and friends or religious ceremonies. (The Asclepius inscriptions on temple walls are a bit unique, but are still about normal worshipers at their religious services doing the traditional rites to their ancient healing deity. And the large majority of these inscriptions are not about miracle healings, but about normal recoveries, or normal therapies and medical treatments, and only a small minority are in the "miracle" category. No writers cited these inscriptions in their books as evidence of miracles happening to the Asclepius worshipers.)
This normal religious-psychological behavior and culture cannot explain the sudden rash of miracle healing acts we see in the Gospel accounts, all attributed to this one person who generally did not know the victims he cured, who were brought to him in large numbers, unlike any other case of reputed healers in the ancient world. Where is there anything like this in all the ancient literature, of a reputed healer visiting a village so that large numbers of the sick or afflicted are brought before him, and widespread cures done by him are reported? There's nothing even close to this in any other reputed cases, nothing to suggest anything normal about such miracle-workers doing mass healings apart from the temples and routine traditional religious observances.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Richard Carrier's evidence that Jesus did miracles
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
parallel example: The Polynesian cargo cults
Here again is an example of NON-MIRACLE claims, and the only point is to argue that legends can emerge in a short time, maybe in one generation, or only a few years. Just because a legend might emerge in a short time doesn't mean instant miracle claims can pop up overnight, or in only a few years, or even in 100 years. There are virtually no examples of miracle legends evolving in a short time period. (In modern times there is some exception to this, because of modern publishing.)
We're talking here about miracle legends which spread beyond a small locality, which attract hundreds or thousands of believers and the cult rumors circulate widely enough that they get published or publicized. Of course there can be a tiny group, a nutcase guru here or there who attracts a few followers locally -- we can't even know how many of these there were, but such tiny groups are ignored, because no one takes them seriously. A more widespread cult movement like the cargo cults attracted attention or popularity and could spread more easily because these aren't about alleged miracles but about a hope for something normal (not superhuman or supernatural) which people could reasonably believe as something humanly possible. It might be wishful thinking, but not about miracle claims.
The normal reaction to miracle claims is to DISbelieve, not to believe, even if there is the wishful thinking. 99.9% of humans know the difference, and understand that miracles are unlikely and not credible, unless there is extra evidence (which is almost never the case). But the normal skepticism does not prevent the folks from praying and expressing hope toward victims they feel sorry for. It's possible to be normally skeptical but also engage in the religious expressions, while not trying to spread miracle claims they know are fictitious.
parallel example: King Arthur
This is not really a serious example for comparison. Clearly the King Arthur legend is doubted as being mostly or totally fiction. The evidence for the historical Jesus is much more abundant than that for King Arthur. Unlike the Jesus case, the "evidence" for King Arthur is nonexistent until several centuries later than the reported events in the stories. And yet, there is nothing scientifically or historically provable that rules out some kind of "King Arthur" in England at the time, as historical, with some heroic knights associated with him. It's not that there's no evidence at all. The reports or stories about this are evidence, similar to Homer's Iliad being evidence for the Trojan War -- but mostly a lower quality of evidence, and so having a lower level of credibility. Even if it's mostly fiction, still there is some fact mixed in with the fiction.
And a serious Christ believer who takes a critical approach has to admit that the Gospels and Paul epistles are not INFALLIBLE evidence. Rather, these are legitimate historical documents from the period which present evidence about what happened and must be judged by the same standards as any other documents, and they contain the same mixture of fact and fiction which we find in all the other documents.
Carrier wants to make King Arthur and all miracle legends 100% fiction, but clearly some of them are at least partly fact mixed with fiction. What about Davy Crockett, e.g.? Obviously there are cases which are part fact, even though there's also fiction. Probably most historical figures, maybe even all, contain a small percent of fiction -- e.g. Washington and Lincoln obviously. FDR, JFK, LBJ and so on. If it's anyone famous, there's probably some fiction in there.
Insisting that some characters are 100% fiction is probably wrong if the character is presented as historical in the written accounts. There's probably not one case which is known to be 100% fiction, like Carrier wants to make Jesus and King Arthur and others. But we know for certain that there are those which are part fact and part fiction, meaning there was a 100% real person there in history, and some fictions got added, mostly much later. This is clearly the more likely explanation for miracle legends, rather than the extreme 100%-fiction theory.
Obviously we don't know for sure, in many cases, like Zeus and Apollo and Asclepius, etc. I.e., all we "know for sure" is that we don't know the exact percent of each. Theoretically they could be 100% fiction, but part fiction and part fact is much more likely. And for King Arthur, fact-plus-fiction is more likely, a better guess, even if it's only 1% fact and 99% fiction.
Carrier's psychological explanation why a legend like King Arthur exists is just as easily plausible whether it's 100% legend or a mixture of fact and fiction. The psychological need for the legend fits the fact-plus-fiction theory just as well, and actually better than the 100%-fiction theory. You could argue that there's a need for many other legends similar to King Arthur, but such legends simply don't exist because nothing ever happened in history to get the needed legend going in the first place. So those legendary figures never got created, despite the psychological need for them.
I.e., historical facts (or believed facts) don't come into existence in order to satisfy some psychological need. It's not the psychological need but the actual events which create the facts or historical record.
While the legendary figures which were created, like King Arthur, required some historical fact originally in order to get the story started, and then later the fictions got added. This theory fits the facts better than the 100%-fiction-only theory which Carrier is hooked on. Carrier's theory is clearly ruled out in many real cases which are known for sure -- Davy Crockett, Lincoln, JFK, etc. And St. Nicholas, who was definitely a real person later mythologized.
Carrier loses it when he finally concludes it's "at least possible" that the Jesus legend served the same need as the King Arthur legend. Of course it's possible, just like it's possible your memory of yesterday was only planted in your head and yesterday never really happened. To say it's "at least possible" is virtually a concession that you're wrong. All the evidence is that the Jesus legend, of the miracle acts, is true, based on the normal evidence of the extra sources, the written accounts, which report what happened. (This doesn't mean there were no fiction details added.) That's what makes it likely true, not some psychological need someone had for some such legend. There was not any special psychological need for a "Jesus legend" in the 1st century, in Judah-Galilee, anymore than at any other place or time in history.
What was the "need" for the Jesus legend? Carrier gives no answer that explains what the special need was at that particular time and place, in contrast to other times or places.
All we can judge is what's more likely, from the evidence. And regardless what need a legend serves, we have good evidence for the Jesus miracle-worker, from normal 1st-century evidence (written accounts reporting what happened), whereas we do not have such evidence for King Arthur, who is therefore much less probable. It's not because of any particular need for such a legend, at this particular time and place, in contrast to a different time and place. What was the need in Galilee for this miracle-worker to show up there in about 30 AD but not show up somewhere else or at some other time in history? Carrier has no answer to this. He has only pretense, pretending to know when or where a certain miracle legend was needed and where it was not needed.
There's no indication that Jews at this time were seeking any miracle-workers. The miracle-workers Elijah and Elisha were virtually forgotten, and had been disregarded for several centuries leading up to this time. Jews were not talking about a need for miracle-workers, for a healing savior, anymore at this time than any other. There's nothing about it in the Jewish literature of this period, virtually nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g. The Law and other writings always had prescribed rituals for healing, treating the sick, and King Solomon had written something about it. There was no more need for this in 30 AD than there had been 500 or 1000 years earlier.
parallel example: Haile Selassie
Is this a Jesus parallel, i.e., a similar savior figure, mythologized into a God or Divine Messiah-type Hero? Selassie is a 20th-century example of someone who became a reputed miracle God figure in a very short time. In modern times conditions are different because of the widespread publishing industry which did not exist 2000 years ago, so the analogies don't apply. But even in this case we're dealing with a famous or powerful celebrity figure, which is the main explanation why he became mythologized into a deity.
Carrier gives this example in order to prove that a miracle legend can emerge in a short time rather than requiring many generations or centuries to be mythologized (as in the case of the ancient pagan legends). Other examples of a possible short-term instant miracle Savior-Messiah-Hero are Alexander the Great and the Emperor Vespasian, although there are no stories of these bodily coming back to life shortly after their death and being seen alive by witnesses. But let's assume they were in some way envisioned as "resurrected" and having ascended to join the gods, and even able to hear prayers from humans remaining on earth and worshiping them. And so they were mythologized even during their lifetime, or shortly after, without requiring centuries to emerge as fiction legends.
Yet, examples like these (or lack of anything better) are actually good evidence that Jesus really did the miracle acts and rose from the grave, because these examples show an inability to explain the Jesus case, even though they explain how those popular hero figures got mythologized. Because ALL such examples of mythologized miracle heroes share one feature in common without exception: all were cases of a very powerful and popular celebrity figure, in some cases a military commander, and/or having recognized Noble or Royal birth, or at least proven leadership talent in their illustrious career, usually merit-based, and thus of very high social status and power, including having a reputation as a reformer-hero leading a popular revolutionary movement, with widespread fame across millions of followers or admirers, and so his miracle reputation could emerge even before he died. This is due to his fame and power and popularity with millions of admirers, which is the only way they came to be mythologized into the miracle-legend category.
And yet, since this description does not fit the case of Jesus at all, then we must find a different explanation how he came to be deified like these celebrity legends were. Why is he the only example of a deified miracle Savior-Hero who had no widely-recognized celebrity status during his lifetime?
In order to give a normal explanation of his case, you have to find another example of such a miracle legend, from among all the deified miracle legends, but a case where a nobody, i.e. someone with no recognized status, suddenly becomes a miracle legend, within 2 or 3 generations, or even within 20 years (as the Resurrection is reported by the Apostle Paul as early as 50 AD).
This cannot be explained by reference to a miracle legend like Alexander the Great or Haile Selassie, etc., who were powerful established and widely-recognized Hero Savior figures during their lifetimes.
This is evidence because no other examples can be given which are comparable to the 1st-century Jesus for whom we have no explanation what made him important if he did no miracle acts. Why is it that every time a mythicist-debunker offers these parallel examples (of other miracle-legend heroes), they can give only examples of someone who was a powerful recognized celebrity during his lifetime? Why can't there be at least one further example of a miracle-legend hero who was NOT famous and powerful during his lifetime? By contrast it can easily be explained how the famous celebrity came to be mythologized (with fictional miracle claims) as a result of his celebrity status. But where there was no such celebrity status -- the Jesus case -- how do you explain his miracle reputation (if the miracle acts are subtracted from the picture)?
Since a renowned mythicist crusader like Carrier can't come up with another example of this, it indicates that there are no other examples to offer. I.e., no other case of a miracle legend which originated from a nobody rather than a powerful celebrity figure of widely-recognized status and reputation in his lifetime. Why are there no such examples which can be offered? Probably because the celebrity status and fame happening first is a requirement for a miracle legend to get started.
If it's true that people just "make up shit!" all the time, like the Jesus miracles, why don't we have at least one other example -- of a nobody becoming an instant miracle-worker?
If the reported miracles of Jesus did not really happen, what explains the written accounts near to the time they reportedly happened? There are no other such cases -- not of a nobody being raised to the status of divine miracle-worker reported in written accounts of the time, through mythologizing, in a time period so short (20-70 years). Even though some fictional stories may emerge in a short time, there's no example of a miracle claim suddenly appearing in the historical record other than a very few cases of a famous and powerful celebrity figure who had a vast reputation and unique enough so as to be raised to divine status by his many disciples and admirers, and also by the mainline Establishment of the period.
Where is there any other case of a reputed miracle hero who lacked such power and fame and celebrity status, like Jesus lacked these and was still a nobody when he was executed (i.e., was a nobody if he actually did not perform those miracle acts)? That the world's foremost expert debunker-crusader cannot offer a single example of this is a good indication that no such example exists.
If not even such a revered expert can give an example, then this itself is good reason (or evidence -- not proof) to believe that the Jesus miracle acts are real facts of history, in contrast to the pagan myths, which explains how the "legend" originated without requiring centuries of storytelling. It's reasonable to believe it, based on the evidence.
By comparison, there are many history beliefs people have for which there is less evidence than in the Jesus case. Obviously there are many beliefs which are held because there is some evidence, even though one could demand more evidence. There is some limited evidence for King Arthur, and people believe this legend because of the evidence as well as the psychological need it fills, even though it's weak evidence, much weaker than the evidence for the historical Jesus and for his miracle healing acts and resurrection.
A major flaw of Carrier is his obsession on the question whether Jesus really existed, rather than what he did, and how good the evidence is for just his existence, which is really ridiculous because no one would even be talking about Jesus if there were no evidence that he existed. Writings of the time say he existed and did those things, more so than for almost any other Jew of the period. No one can give a real reason to assume Jesus did not exist, unless also assuming that half our recognized historical characters were really fiction and really did not exist. Obviously you can question anything -- even whether yesterday really happened or is only a false memory implanted into your brain. Of course in that solipsistic sense it's possible Jesus did not exist, along with most else we have in the historical record.
But if we just accept the historical record -- all the documents from the past -- as evidence, we have to assume that most of the reported characters really did exist, and understand the problem of separating fact from fiction, being extra critical and skeptical of anything dubious. The real question is not whether the characters really existed, but what they really did or said vs. the fiction -- so we can assume that much did not really happen, and many characters differed greatly, in the real world, from what's reported. That makes much more sense than simplistically dismissing half our historical record as fiction.
All the evidence is that Jesus really did perform the miracle healing acts and really rose back to life after being killed. If he did not perform those acts, no one can explain why we know anything at all about him. Without those acts he did, what else is there that makes him noteworthy at all? Nothing -- and so we should find nothing at all about him in any written accounts of the time, because the ancient writers did not waste their costly writing materials on someone who did nothing worth reporting on, or nothing noteworthy -- maybe in contrast to today when 100% fiction is often reported as fact because of the much wider and less costly publishing resources today when a whole library is less costly than one book in the ancient Alexandria library.
So Carrier's arguments actually are themselves evidence that the historical Jesus differs from all the other reputed miracle-workers, being that he's unable to come up with one example of another case for which there is no explanation how the mythologizing got started. The only examples he can give -- the parallels -- are the standard typical cases which can be explained, e.g., of a famous celebrity whose wide reputation easily explains the origin of the mythologizing; plus in his desperation he also gives cases of NON-miracle legendary characters, which are irrelevant because these are much easier to be accepted by the public which is generally skeptical of miracle claims. As long as this is all the expert-debunker can offer, it's good evidence that there are no other cases, which means the Jesus case stands apart as uniquely different than all the other reputed miracle-worker legends of history.
That mythicists can't come up with one other case, though they're asked again and again for an example, and yet keep repeating the falsehood that there were plenty of other reputed miracle-workers like Jesus, is itself very strong evidence that Jesus stands out uniquely as the only case, for whom there is no explanation from the ancient history culture and traditions and context. And especially now that they have found it necessary to make up stories about historical characters never really having existed but just being fictional -- and in nutcase fashion conjuring up this new category of fictional quasi-historical characters for the sole purpose of finding a way to sweep Jesus out of their way (which character category they otherwise would never dream of creating) -- this desperation on their part actually compounds even further the evidence refuting them.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
parallel example: The Polynesian cargo cults
Here again is an example of NON-MIRACLE claims, and the only point is to argue that legends can emerge in a short time, maybe in one generation, or only a few years. Just because a legend might emerge in a short time doesn't mean instant miracle claims can pop up overnight, or in only a few years, or even in 100 years. There are virtually no examples of miracle legends evolving in a short time period. (In modern times there is some exception to this, because of modern publishing.)
We're talking here about miracle legends which spread beyond a small locality, which attract hundreds or thousands of believers and the cult rumors circulate widely enough that they get published or publicized. Of course there can be a tiny group, a nutcase guru here or there who attracts a few followers locally -- we can't even know how many of these there were, but such tiny groups are ignored, because no one takes them seriously. A more widespread cult movement like the cargo cults attracted attention or popularity and could spread more easily because these aren't about alleged miracles but about a hope for something normal (not superhuman or supernatural) which people could reasonably believe as something humanly possible. It might be wishful thinking, but not about miracle claims.
The normal reaction to miracle claims is to DISbelieve, not to believe, even if there is the wishful thinking. 99.9% of humans know the difference, and understand that miracles are unlikely and not credible, unless there is extra evidence (which is almost never the case). But the normal skepticism does not prevent the folks from praying and expressing hope toward victims they feel sorry for. It's possible to be normally skeptical but also engage in the religious expressions, while not trying to spread miracle claims they know are fictitious.
parallel example: King Arthur
This is not really a serious example for comparison. Clearly the King Arthur legend is doubted as being mostly or totally fiction. The evidence for the historical Jesus is much more abundant than that for King Arthur. Unlike the Jesus case, the "evidence" for King Arthur is nonexistent until several centuries later than the reported events in the stories. And yet, there is nothing scientifically or historically provable that rules out some kind of "King Arthur" in England at the time, as historical, with some heroic knights associated with him. It's not that there's no evidence at all. The reports or stories about this are evidence, similar to Homer's Iliad being evidence for the Trojan War -- but mostly a lower quality of evidence, and so having a lower level of credibility. Even if it's mostly fiction, still there is some fact mixed in with the fiction.
And a serious Christ believer who takes a critical approach has to admit that the Gospels and Paul epistles are not INFALLIBLE evidence. Rather, these are legitimate historical documents from the period which present evidence about what happened and must be judged by the same standards as any other documents, and they contain the same mixture of fact and fiction which we find in all the other documents.
Carrier wants to make King Arthur and all miracle legends 100% fiction, but clearly some of them are at least partly fact mixed with fiction. What about Davy Crockett, e.g.? Obviously there are cases which are part fact, even though there's also fiction. Probably most historical figures, maybe even all, contain a small percent of fiction -- e.g. Washington and Lincoln obviously. FDR, JFK, LBJ and so on. If it's anyone famous, there's probably some fiction in there.
Insisting that some characters are 100% fiction is probably wrong if the character is presented as historical in the written accounts. There's probably not one case which is known to be 100% fiction, like Carrier wants to make Jesus and King Arthur and others. But we know for certain that there are those which are part fact and part fiction, meaning there was a 100% real person there in history, and some fictions got added, mostly much later. This is clearly the more likely explanation for miracle legends, rather than the extreme 100%-fiction theory.
Obviously we don't know for sure, in many cases, like Zeus and Apollo and Asclepius, etc. I.e., all we "know for sure" is that we don't know the exact percent of each. Theoretically they could be 100% fiction, but part fiction and part fact is much more likely. And for King Arthur, fact-plus-fiction is more likely, a better guess, even if it's only 1% fact and 99% fiction.
Carrier's psychological explanation why a legend like King Arthur exists is just as easily plausible whether it's 100% legend or a mixture of fact and fiction. The psychological need for the legend fits the fact-plus-fiction theory just as well, and actually better than the 100%-fiction theory. You could argue that there's a need for many other legends similar to King Arthur, but such legends simply don't exist because nothing ever happened in history to get the needed legend going in the first place. So those legendary figures never got created, despite the psychological need for them.
I.e., historical facts (or believed facts) don't come into existence in order to satisfy some psychological need. It's not the psychological need but the actual events which create the facts or historical record.
While the legendary figures which were created, like King Arthur, required some historical fact originally in order to get the story started, and then later the fictions got added. This theory fits the facts better than the 100%-fiction-only theory which Carrier is hooked on. Carrier's theory is clearly ruled out in many real cases which are known for sure -- Davy Crockett, Lincoln, JFK, etc. And St. Nicholas, who was definitely a real person later mythologized.
Carrier loses it when he finally concludes it's "at least possible" that the Jesus legend served the same need as the King Arthur legend. Of course it's possible, just like it's possible your memory of yesterday was only planted in your head and yesterday never really happened. To say it's "at least possible" is virtually a concession that you're wrong. All the evidence is that the Jesus legend, of the miracle acts, is true, based on the normal evidence of the extra sources, the written accounts, which report what happened. (This doesn't mean there were no fiction details added.) That's what makes it likely true, not some psychological need someone had for some such legend. There was not any special psychological need for a "Jesus legend" in the 1st century, in Judah-Galilee, anymore than at any other place or time in history.
What was the "need" for the Jesus legend? Carrier gives no answer that explains what the special need was at that particular time and place, in contrast to other times or places.
All we can judge is what's more likely, from the evidence. And regardless what need a legend serves, we have good evidence for the Jesus miracle-worker, from normal 1st-century evidence (written accounts reporting what happened), whereas we do not have such evidence for King Arthur, who is therefore much less probable. It's not because of any particular need for such a legend, at this particular time and place, in contrast to a different time and place. What was the need in Galilee for this miracle-worker to show up there in about 30 AD but not show up somewhere else or at some other time in history? Carrier has no answer to this. He has only pretense, pretending to know when or where a certain miracle legend was needed and where it was not needed.
There's no indication that Jews at this time were seeking any miracle-workers. The miracle-workers Elijah and Elisha were virtually forgotten, and had been disregarded for several centuries leading up to this time. Jews were not talking about a need for miracle-workers, for a healing savior, anymore at this time than any other. There's nothing about it in the Jewish literature of this period, virtually nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g. The Law and other writings always had prescribed rituals for healing, treating the sick, and King Solomon had written something about it. There was no more need for this in 30 AD than there had been 500 or 1000 years earlier.
parallel example: Haile Selassie
Is this a Jesus parallel, i.e., a similar savior figure, mythologized into a God or Divine Messiah-type Hero? Selassie is a 20th-century example of someone who became a reputed miracle God figure in a very short time. In modern times conditions are different because of the widespread publishing industry which did not exist 2000 years ago, so the analogies don't apply. But even in this case we're dealing with a famous or powerful celebrity figure, which is the main explanation why he became mythologized into a deity.
Carrier gives this example in order to prove that a miracle legend can emerge in a short time rather than requiring many generations or centuries to be mythologized (as in the case of the ancient pagan legends). Other examples of a possible short-term instant miracle Savior-Messiah-Hero are Alexander the Great and the Emperor Vespasian, although there are no stories of these bodily coming back to life shortly after their death and being seen alive by witnesses. But let's assume they were in some way envisioned as "resurrected" and having ascended to join the gods, and even able to hear prayers from humans remaining on earth and worshiping them. And so they were mythologized even during their lifetime, or shortly after, without requiring centuries to emerge as fiction legends.
Yet, examples like these (or lack of anything better) are actually good evidence that Jesus really did the miracle acts and rose from the grave, because these examples show an inability to explain the Jesus case, even though they explain how those popular hero figures got mythologized. Because ALL such examples of mythologized miracle heroes share one feature in common without exception: all were cases of a very powerful and popular celebrity figure, in some cases a military commander, and/or having recognized Noble or Royal birth, or at least proven leadership talent in their illustrious career, usually merit-based, and thus of very high social status and power, including having a reputation as a reformer-hero leading a popular revolutionary movement, with widespread fame across millions of followers or admirers, and so his miracle reputation could emerge even before he died. This is due to his fame and power and popularity with millions of admirers, which is the only way they came to be mythologized into the miracle-legend category.
And yet, since this description does not fit the case of Jesus at all, then we must find a different explanation how he came to be deified like these celebrity legends were. Why is he the only example of a deified miracle Savior-Hero who had no widely-recognized celebrity status during his lifetime?
In order to give a normal explanation of his case, you have to find another example of such a miracle legend, from among all the deified miracle legends, but a case where a nobody, i.e. someone with no recognized status, suddenly becomes a miracle legend, within 2 or 3 generations, or even within 20 years (as the Resurrection is reported by the Apostle Paul as early as 50 AD).
This cannot be explained by reference to a miracle legend like Alexander the Great or Haile Selassie, etc., who were powerful established and widely-recognized Hero Savior figures during their lifetimes.
This is evidence because no other examples can be given which are comparable to the 1st-century Jesus for whom we have no explanation what made him important if he did no miracle acts. Why is it that every time a mythicist-debunker offers these parallel examples (of other miracle-legend heroes), they can give only examples of someone who was a powerful recognized celebrity during his lifetime? Why can't there be at least one further example of a miracle-legend hero who was NOT famous and powerful during his lifetime? By contrast it can easily be explained how the famous celebrity came to be mythologized (with fictional miracle claims) as a result of his celebrity status. But where there was no such celebrity status -- the Jesus case -- how do you explain his miracle reputation (if the miracle acts are subtracted from the picture)?
Since a renowned mythicist crusader like Carrier can't come up with another example of this, it indicates that there are no other examples to offer. I.e., no other case of a miracle legend which originated from a nobody rather than a powerful celebrity figure of widely-recognized status and reputation in his lifetime. Why are there no such examples which can be offered? Probably because the celebrity status and fame happening first is a requirement for a miracle legend to get started.
If it's true that people just "make up shit!" all the time, like the Jesus miracles, why don't we have at least one other example -- of a nobody becoming an instant miracle-worker?
If the reported miracles of Jesus did not really happen, what explains the written accounts near to the time they reportedly happened? There are no other such cases -- not of a nobody being raised to the status of divine miracle-worker reported in written accounts of the time, through mythologizing, in a time period so short (20-70 years). Even though some fictional stories may emerge in a short time, there's no example of a miracle claim suddenly appearing in the historical record other than a very few cases of a famous and powerful celebrity figure who had a vast reputation and unique enough so as to be raised to divine status by his many disciples and admirers, and also by the mainline Establishment of the period.
Where is there any other case of a reputed miracle hero who lacked such power and fame and celebrity status, like Jesus lacked these and was still a nobody when he was executed (i.e., was a nobody if he actually did not perform those miracle acts)? That the world's foremost expert debunker-crusader cannot offer a single example of this is a good indication that no such example exists.
If not even such a revered expert can give an example, then this itself is good reason (or evidence -- not proof) to believe that the Jesus miracle acts are real facts of history, in contrast to the pagan myths, which explains how the "legend" originated without requiring centuries of storytelling. It's reasonable to believe it, based on the evidence.
By comparison, there are many history beliefs people have for which there is less evidence than in the Jesus case. Obviously there are many beliefs which are held because there is some evidence, even though one could demand more evidence. There is some limited evidence for King Arthur, and people believe this legend because of the evidence as well as the psychological need it fills, even though it's weak evidence, much weaker than the evidence for the historical Jesus and for his miracle healing acts and resurrection.
A major flaw of Carrier is his obsession on the question whether Jesus really existed, rather than what he did, and how good the evidence is for just his existence, which is really ridiculous because no one would even be talking about Jesus if there were no evidence that he existed. Writings of the time say he existed and did those things, more so than for almost any other Jew of the period. No one can give a real reason to assume Jesus did not exist, unless also assuming that half our recognized historical characters were really fiction and really did not exist. Obviously you can question anything -- even whether yesterday really happened or is only a false memory implanted into your brain. Of course in that solipsistic sense it's possible Jesus did not exist, along with most else we have in the historical record.
But if we just accept the historical record -- all the documents from the past -- as evidence, we have to assume that most of the reported characters really did exist, and understand the problem of separating fact from fiction, being extra critical and skeptical of anything dubious. The real question is not whether the characters really existed, but what they really did or said vs. the fiction -- so we can assume that much did not really happen, and many characters differed greatly, in the real world, from what's reported. That makes much more sense than simplistically dismissing half our historical record as fiction.
All the evidence is that Jesus really did perform the miracle healing acts and really rose back to life after being killed. If he did not perform those acts, no one can explain why we know anything at all about him. Without those acts he did, what else is there that makes him noteworthy at all? Nothing -- and so we should find nothing at all about him in any written accounts of the time, because the ancient writers did not waste their costly writing materials on someone who did nothing worth reporting on, or nothing noteworthy -- maybe in contrast to today when 100% fiction is often reported as fact because of the much wider and less costly publishing resources today when a whole library is less costly than one book in the ancient Alexandria library.
So Carrier's arguments actually are themselves evidence that the historical Jesus differs from all the other reputed miracle-workers, being that he's unable to come up with one example of another case for which there is no explanation how the mythologizing got started. The only examples he can give -- the parallels -- are the standard typical cases which can be explained, e.g., of a famous celebrity whose wide reputation easily explains the origin of the mythologizing; plus in his desperation he also gives cases of NON-miracle legendary characters, which are irrelevant because these are much easier to be accepted by the public which is generally skeptical of miracle claims. As long as this is all the expert-debunker can offer, it's good evidence that there are no other cases, which means the Jesus case stands apart as uniquely different than all the other reputed miracle-worker legends of history.
That mythicists can't come up with one other case, though they're asked again and again for an example, and yet keep repeating the falsehood that there were plenty of other reputed miracle-workers like Jesus, is itself very strong evidence that Jesus stands out uniquely as the only case, for whom there is no explanation from the ancient history culture and traditions and context. And especially now that they have found it necessary to make up stories about historical characters never really having existed but just being fictional -- and in nutcase fashion conjuring up this new category of fictional quasi-historical characters for the sole purpose of finding a way to sweep Jesus out of their way (which character category they otherwise would never dream of creating) -- this desperation on their part actually compounds even further the evidence refuting them.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Richard Carrier's evidence that Jesus did miracles
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
As an analogy to the historical Jesus, this summary by Wood itself is an indication that the miracle acts of Jesus really happened. Why? Because the summary does not apply to (and thus ignores) the miracle acts of Jesus, because it refers only to secondary details in the Gospel accounts. It's not true that the basic reported miracles -- of Jesus doing the instant healings, raising the dead back to life, and rising from the dead himself -- are incorporated from anything earlier. Maybe it's true that some MINOR items were incorporated into Christianity, even into the Gospels, from something earlier: e.g. baptism, the eucharist, the virgin birth, the Trinity, etc. -- e.g. his December 25 birthdate. But not the vast majority of the Jesus miracle acts -- the exorcisms and other miracle cures, and the Resurrection. These are not borrowed from anything earlier. And these are the important acts of Jesus which make him important in history.
If the point is to prove that Jesus is fictional, then why not take these essential elements of the "Jesus legend" and show how they were borrowed from earlier superstitions? Why are these main points ignored and instead only minor points like the "virgin birth" or "walking on water" etc. used, to make a connection to earlier superstitions? The only answer is that the real miracles of Jesus do not appear in anything earlier and were not "co-opted" or "incorporated" from the previous legends or culture.
Without these reported miracle acts of Jesus, we would have no "Jesus legend" today, no Christianity any greater than today's John the Baptist sect, and no more debate about "the Historical Jesus" than about the Historical John the Baptist. Because it's the reported miracle acts and Resurrection, based on the 1st-century evidence, which distinguish Jesus from this and other prophets and rabbis, etc.
It's totally plausible that after the significant facts -- the miracle acts -- of Jesus were circulating, then other elements got added, and these additional items were placed into the Jesus "legend" along with the original reports about his miracle acts. Possibly the Bethlehem birth, the "walking on water" etc. If he really did perform the miracle acts and this became known, we would expect some embellishments to soon be added.
But the vast majority of the Jesus miracles are the instant healing acts he did, and then the Resurrection being the climax. Were these "old stories and elements" incorporated "from various cultures and times" prior to the 1st century AD? Where? You cannot cite any literature in the earlier culture or times where we see such reported miracle acts as these.
Yes, it's true that you can give a laundry list of ancient gods or heroes you imagine did these miracle acts in the legends. But you cannot cite any ancient literature to confirm this. All you can cite are modern-day gurus like Richard Carrier who falsely place these into the pagan legends. But these 20th- and 21st-century debunkers never give the ancient texts where these miracles are reported. If you believe these mythicist talking points, you are taking it on faith alone, believing it "in your heart" without any evidence.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
King Arthur was never preached as a celestial being, or imaginary being, or fiction, or hallucination, etc. We have no evidence ever of anyone being preached as any such thing, and then somehow later "historicized" into a real person in history. Carrier can't give any serious example of such a thing. What we have much evidence of is actual historical persons later mythologized into someone who ends up later being mostly fiction, and we can easily recognize that this pattern does not fit the case of the historical Jesus described in the Gospel accounts as a miracle healer and rising from the grave after having been killed.
No, most historians don't reach this conclusion. While many are skeptical and maybe only a minority are pretty sure he existed, it's basically an open question. And "almost certain no such man ever existed" is a small minority view. What's certain is the very little evidence of him. But there is some evidence that he (or some leader -- not "king" per se) -- did exist and led knights or soldiers of some kind to protect an area of England from Saxon invaders.
But this doesn't mean the Arthur story is originally fiction. It more likely means a real historical person later got mythologized.
As an analogy to the historical Jesus, this summary by Wood itself is an indication that the miracle acts of Jesus really happened. Why? Because the summary does not apply to (and thus ignores) the miracle acts of Jesus, because it refers only to secondary details in the Gospel accounts. It's not true that the basic reported miracles -- of Jesus doing the instant healings, raising the dead back to life, and rising from the dead himself -- are incorporated from anything earlier. Maybe it's true that some MINOR items were incorporated into Christianity, even into the Gospels, from something earlier: e.g. baptism, the eucharist, the virgin birth, the Trinity, etc. -- e.g. his December 25 birthdate. But not the vast majority of the Jesus miracle acts -- the exorcisms and other miracle cures, and the Resurrection. These are not borrowed from anything earlier. And these are the important acts of Jesus which make him important in history.
If the point is to prove that Jesus is fictional, then why not take these essential elements of the "Jesus legend" and show how they were borrowed from earlier superstitions? Why are these main points ignored and instead only minor points like the "virgin birth" or "walking on water" etc. used, to make a connection to earlier superstitions? The only answer is that the real miracles of Jesus do not appear in anything earlier and were not "co-opted" or "incorporated" from the previous legends or culture.
Without these reported miracle acts of Jesus, we would have no "Jesus legend" today, no Christianity any greater than today's John the Baptist sect, and no more debate about "the Historical Jesus" than about the Historical John the Baptist. Because it's the reported miracle acts and Resurrection, based on the 1st-century evidence, which distinguish Jesus from this and other prophets and rabbis, etc.
It's totally plausible that after the significant facts -- the miracle acts -- of Jesus were circulating, then other elements got added, and these additional items were placed into the Jesus "legend" along with the original reports about his miracle acts. Possibly the Bethlehem birth, the "walking on water" etc. If he really did perform the miracle acts and this became known, we would expect some embellishments to soon be added.
But the vast majority of the Jesus miracles are the instant healing acts he did, and then the Resurrection being the climax. Were these "old stories and elements" incorporated "from various cultures and times" prior to the 1st century AD? Where? You cannot cite any literature in the earlier culture or times where we see such reported miracle acts as these.
Yes, it's true that you can give a laundry list of ancient gods or heroes you imagine did these miracle acts in the legends. But you cannot cite any ancient literature to confirm this. All you can cite are modern-day gurus like Richard Carrier who falsely place these into the pagan legends. But these 20th- and 21st-century debunkers never give the ancient texts where these miracles are reported. If you believe these mythicist talking points, you are taking it on faith alone, believing it "in your heart" without any evidence.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Last edited:
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 480
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
- Carrier, Richard (2014a). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 9781909697355.
- Carrier, Richard (2014b). "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?". The Bible and Interpretation.
- Carrier, Richard (2020a). Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 9781634312080.
- Carrier, Richard (2020b). "Jesus from Outer Space?". The Bible and Interpretation.
- Lataster, Raphael (2019a). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill–Rodopi. ISBN 9789004397934.
- Lataster, Raphael (2019b). "Questioning Jesus’ Historicity". The Bible and Interpretation.
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 480
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
Haden Clark claims that Carrier can not understand Pauline rhetoric "Born of a Woman"!
"Jesus Was Born of A Woman, Born Under The Law In The Heavens Mythicist?". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 21 November 2022.
- "Jesus was Born of a Woman (Richard Carrier and Jesus Mythicism)". YouTube. Haden Clark. 30 July 2020.
"Jesus Was Born of A Woman, Born Under The Law In The Heavens Mythicist?". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 21 November 2022.
Last edited:
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
This thread certainly grew since I did the Original Post! Hi everyone, I just began a series of posts on Internet Infidels /Secular Web blog Secular Frontier critiquing the Christ Myth Theory. A few typos fixed from first posting. Check it out: https://secularfrontier.infidels.or...he-modern-critique-of-the-christ-myth-theory/
For me, died, woke up, and flew away is where I stop. It just doesn't match their god's given common sense. There is no need for me to look at "origins" past historical context.
That people won't change their conclusions as we learn more about our place in the system is more interesting. Fundamentalist think atheism/theism is a set of data points showing us about our species.
That people won't change their conclusions as we learn more about our place in the system is more interesting. Fundamentalist think atheism/theism is a set of data points showing us about our species.
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
It's fun anyway from a literary point of view. Heidegger (Destruktion) and Derrida (Deconstruction) appropriate Nietzsche's idea of the :spur" or trace which is about finding an idea in a system that the system should be able to appropriate but can't, and so the rogue element threatens to unbuild the whole system. An example of this in law would be the failure of the traditional definition of marriage to account for LGBTQ rights. A literary example of this might be the presence of unintended misogyny in a narrative about an historical era, which undermines the author's idealized intention. Derrida hence says there is nothing beyond the text. Price took this as his motto in his last pre-mythicist work Deconstructing Jesus.
yup ...
until the counter strike is based on revenge I guess. Seeking equal rights being weaponized for revenge for past generations (basically holding grandchildren's nieces responsible) actions isn't so noble either.
Again, for me, "police my own first" comes to the forefront. I don't ram my point of view down people's throat. For example, a biological male competing with biologic females'. I don't care what they identify as or who they marry. Biological males being allowed to compete with biological females' is stupid and demonstrates the issue we are up against..
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
Biological males who identify as women participating in women's sports is certainly problematic - as certain swimming events have shown. One solution would be to identify trans females as a separate competition category, and so trans females would compete against other trans females.
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
Thanks for sharing that.
I read the essay. It's an interesting thesis, certainly something to look into. We of course have a canonical instance of Christianity emerging out of a prior baptism cult, namely that of John the Baptist, and certainly the fact that John is so mythologized in the image of Elijah it is certainly possible Mark had invented a famous and respected figure like John for Jesus to go beyond as greater, like Elisha replacing Elijah, whereas what really happened is Jesus never knew John and really emerged out of this replacement of the Chrestus tradition. Moreover, the epistles speak of Jesus receiving the divine name and status at his death, which he didn't already have, and the idea of the believer becoming born again as/with Christ living in them, which fits the article too. In any case, fits the historical Jesus model.
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 480
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
Not
- John is so mythologized in the image of Elijah
- John is Elijah in gMark!
At time 31:08 Price notes that gMark opens with allusions to OT scripture that culminates in a later pronouncement by Jesus that deprecates the second-temple.
Price opines that gMark expects the reader to have OT familiarity with Elijah so as to instantly recognize any allusion to such in gMark!
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
I think the haggadic midrash form presents John the Baptist as new and greater than Elijah, like gMatthew presents Jesus as the new and greater Moses - not that Jesus is Moses. This follows the general mimesis technique used in ancient writing as outlined by Dennis MacDonald and others that the copy is superior to the original.
Learner
Veteran Member
I happened to listen to a talk by a fellow Christian on the very verse, where Luke clarifies here.
Luke 1:17
17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people.
(In the spirit of Elijah = in likeness of Elijah, as the context to this shows with the verses below)
Matt 17:1-3
1.Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2.and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3.And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. (The Original Elijah)
Luke17:12-13
12.But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” 13.Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.
Mathew 11:13-15 Jesus says:
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15.He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 214
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28 imply John the Baptist was greater than Elijah