DBT
Contributor
Be written in the Torah, the Talmud or New testament, how are we to sort fact from fiction, myth from reality?
-
Features
The Christ Myth Theory
- Thread starter 1Heidegger1!
- Start date
Be written in the Torah, the Talmud or New testament, how are we to sort fact from fiction, myth from reality?
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Jesus of Nazareth was an ordinary human who was revered for his kindness and, perhaps eloquence and somehow became the "mascot" for a religious cult after he was martyred.
I don't read this thread much, but I do see some severe confusion.
That Jesus walked on water IS A MYTH.
That Jesus turned water into wine IS A MYTH.
That Jesus raised people, including himself, from the dead IS A MYTH.
Many, or perhaps most Christians understand this. EVERYONE who is NOT a Christian understands this.
Myth Myth Myth MYTH.
But that is NOT what "Christ Myth Theory" even means. That term refers to the crackpot position that there was no historic Jesus of Nazareth; that even that is a MYTH.
Get it? Understand now?
Hope this helps.
I don't read this thread much, but I do see some severe confusion.
That Jesus walked on water IS A MYTH.
That Jesus turned water into wine IS A MYTH.
That Jesus raised people, including himself, from the dead IS A MYTH.
Many, or perhaps most Christians understand this. EVERYONE who is NOT a Christian understands this.
Myth Myth Myth MYTH.
But that is NOT what "Christ Myth Theory" even means. That term refers to the crackpot position that there was no historic Jesus of Nazareth; that even that is a MYTH.
Get it? Understand now?
Hope this helps.
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 443
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
The literary Jesus of Nazareth figure in gMark may derive from some historical "Jesus" with no greater probability than ~33.3%
- In gMark—Jewish scriptures (perhaps many then extant & now lost to history, but intrinsic to gMark) were not used as an attempt to demonstrate that the life of Jesus was a fulfillment of OT prophecies. However the copious allusions, inter-textual references, etc. to scripture were used to tell a "Meta Story" in gMark!
- Mark 12:35 “…How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?”
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 443
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
The Christ myth theory concerns the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a mythological figure or a historical one. While Christ myth theory and Jesus myth theory are often used as synonyms, this page uses the former as a broader umbrella term.
One of the biggest problems with the "Christ myth" is what it actually means is all over the freaking map largely because Volney and Dupuis had different views regarding the Christ myth, which resulted in a large range of ideas being called "Jesus myth theory", "Christ myth theory", or "Ahistorical Jesus" (including ones that accept Jesus existed as a human being). Alternatively, Neil Godfrey gives the following definition:
Which echoes the 1909 definition given by John Remsburg:
[...]
Historicists v. Biblicists and Jesus v. Christ (god-Jesus)
Per the canonical gospels, Historicists assert that these literary narratives featuring "fancy_god-Jesus" contain biographical data for the historical personage Jesus Bar-Joseph/Pantera (i.e. "plain_Jane-Jesus" a real historical person) that can be extracted.[9]
For Biblicists, the gospels are fictional narrative literature (a genre of historical fiction) and do not support a historical figure from the literary protagonist character named Jesus. But a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed.[note 1]
Christ is a second-god, is the only-begotten son of First-god (YHWH), was incarnated in a virgin (Mary) and crucified for us. The Nicene Creed, the most widely accepted confession of the Christian faith (but not the only one), explains that this god will appear on Earth at the end of days to judge the living and the dead.
Academic criticism of the Christ myth
“”Strauss arrived at a Christianity depersonalized and anonymous, reducing Jesus to nothing more than a gifted genius whom legend had gradually deified. In this account, the Christian faith could be explained without reference to the Jesus of history. Strauss in this way firmly stayed on the side of the negative critique. He did not arrive at a historical core of the life of Jesus… —Elisabeth Hurth [11]
Arguably every modern biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the god called Lord Jesus Christ,[12] holds that Christ is a myth,[note 2]
The academic criticism of Christian dogma in the belief of Jesus' immortality and incarnation is commonly held to originate in 1835 with David Strauss.[16] In 1941, Rudolf Bultmann
promoted the abstraction of the Christ myth by demythologization.[17]
It makes as much sense to call Strauss (who denied the fantastical assertion of a Christ's existence, i.e. the fictional lord of the Christian church) a "Christ mythicist"… as it does to call someone a "Unicorn mythicist" for denying that Unicorns exist. A 1910 syndicated news report noted "the mythical theory of Strauss".
[Arthur Drews] laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verityin the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.[18][19]
--"Christ myth theory". RationalWiki.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
And if you're going to sell many books you have to have some agreement that somehow there was this "guy." Pick the one you want or invent your own.
An earlier link suggested that this "guy" was a composite of guys or a particular guy now lost, a member or members of competing cults. That's possible, and if so it's a guy who bears no resemblance to the eloguent, lovable, paragon of virtue and suffering, etc., etc., guy in the gospels. He therefore becomes as historical as any character in any piece of fiction ever composed.
I think the gospel stories are fan fiction like all other fiction. Authors take their experiences and ideas and spin them into tales. Smaug and orcs and hobbits and wizards are just as historical in this sense. Nobody really discusses these in any "historical" sense because there isn't all the religious baggage. So much of the Jesus story has been changed to comport with religious need.
Darwin opined that whales descended from land animals but was dissuaded from including this in his writing because it was so outlandishly unpopular and downright kooky an idea.
Continental drift was scoffed, ridiculed and laughed at when first suggested.
Thomas Jefferson had children with one of his slaves? Not the great Uncle Tom that saved us from the British. He would never do such a thing.
Ignaz Semmelweis said if you doctors just washed your hands between patients there would be less disease. What a crackpot.
Shakespeare wasn't actually an illiterate commoner who was invisible in his time? No one ever met him? No letters exist in his hand? We only have six scrawled signatures, all different? Not even his family called him an author or playwright? How crazy is all that! We know he's the one true genius from Stratford who wrote Hamlet. How dare anyone disagree with my orthodoxy!
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,453
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think one of the biggest conflicts here is really more over how much someone wants to claim is authentic.
I think it's reasonable to ascertain that a "temple tantrum" followed by an execution did happen.
Was that person named "Jesus" or was "Jesus" an assumed name? We'll never know.
We have some grounds to believe that someone autistic enough to throw the "temple tantrum" was going to be weird enough to think about "god" a lot and have some heretical views on the subject.
But to me the existence of the person is less doubtful to me than anything specific about him. I don't see a single thing he said that wasn't fairly clearly corrupted or misunderstood by the cult he spawned.
I would expect that many things attributed to him were either made up or came from other traditions. There were a few cults around that particular revival movement, and I expect they "accreted" around "Jesus".
I would say the most we can really know about him was that he had some ideas about what defined "self", those had something to do with "'father', 'ghost', 'son'", and there were themes about immortality, rebirth, and reincarnation.
I know that even if I managed to distill everything I think about those topics and discuss them with people, people would come away believing more like what Christians today do than anything resembling what I actually think about those topics, especially if I didn't write it down for myself.
I would say I consider myself a mythicist insofar as everything we think we know about that person is mangled, twisted, and unreliable, including his very name... All except "a man lived in Nazareth, threw a tantrum in a temple, went to trial, and was executed for saying something heretical".
I think it's reasonable to ascertain that a "temple tantrum" followed by an execution did happen.
Was that person named "Jesus" or was "Jesus" an assumed name? We'll never know.
We have some grounds to believe that someone autistic enough to throw the "temple tantrum" was going to be weird enough to think about "god" a lot and have some heretical views on the subject.
But to me the existence of the person is less doubtful to me than anything specific about him. I don't see a single thing he said that wasn't fairly clearly corrupted or misunderstood by the cult he spawned.
I would expect that many things attributed to him were either made up or came from other traditions. There were a few cults around that particular revival movement, and I expect they "accreted" around "Jesus".
I would say the most we can really know about him was that he had some ideas about what defined "self", those had something to do with "'father', 'ghost', 'son'", and there were themes about immortality, rebirth, and reincarnation.
I know that even if I managed to distill everything I think about those topics and discuss them with people, people would come away believing more like what Christians today do than anything resembling what I actually think about those topics, especially if I didn't write it down for myself.
I would say I consider myself a mythicist insofar as everything we think we know about that person is mangled, twisted, and unreliable, including his very name... All except "a man lived in Nazareth, threw a tantrum in a temple, went to trial, and was executed for saying something heretical".
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
So you're one of these Carrier cultists who regard Richard C. as some probability guru like Nate Silver or whoever. L.O.L. (Have I mentioned that one of my 30+ U.S. patents dealt specifically with the craft of probability estimation?)
Even so, I think you're misquoting your cult leader. Isn't "about 33%" his number rather than "no greater than 33%"? I could be wrong -- Unlike you cultists, for whom Carrier's writings are your own Bible (or Sayings of Chairman Mao), I've barely skimmed a few of his blatherings.
And it is QUITE amusing how all of you pretend to be experts on the historicity question, but have NO answer whatsoever for the question of James, "Jesus's brother." Last time I checked Carrier was going with a PARTIAL solution based on James' brother being Jesus ben Damneus. Do you guys follow your leader on that?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The only thing that makes sense to me is the gospels as a conflation of people and events.
I don;t know where you can get the idea people followed Jesus because he was eloquent, pure Christian imagination. Projection.
We know initially Rome considers them heretic Jews. Follow Jesus? Keep kosher.
The Christian narrate likely has little to do with any Jews who may have followed a wandering Jewish HJ.
I don;t know where you can get the idea people followed Jesus because he was eloquent, pure Christian imagination. Projection.
We know initially Rome considers them heretic Jews. Follow Jesus? Keep kosher.
The Christian narrate likely has little to do with any Jews who may have followed a wandering Jewish HJ.
dbz
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2022
- Messages
- 443
- Gender
- male
- Basic Beliefs
- Max 1:3 possible that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage
- {Christianity] likely has little to do with any Jews who may have followed a wandering Jewish HJ.
- Get you hands off my HJ!
- Rx...
via poppy-somniferum! - Run around yelling "NO answer whatsoever for the question of James, "Jesus's brother."!
- Wash off elephant poop.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Kudos if any of you actually come up with an answer to this question which is even half-complete. I've watched these threads for at least 2 or 3 years now, with their thousands of posts; and Not one of you ever has, yet. Is it beneath your dignity to actually study the historicity question?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
We have answered your questions. You simply do not accept the answers. That's okay.
Jarhyn said:
That's the discussion. Swammi's Jesus is a kind, eloquent, polished, compassionate speaker who got whacked for no good reason by the bad guys and deserves the world's attention and devotion. Your historical Jesus is as historical as any literary figure ever inked. My historical Jesus is an author or authors. Another person's historical Jesus rose from death and flew away into the clouds like Superman because he just had to leave. Jefferson's Jesus was a man of the enlightenment.
There's a difference between something being historical and something being historically inspired. For many people having a flesh and blood person is comfort, closure and orthodoxy. Not so for others.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I stopped here and just skimmed the rest of your post looking for "James." Not found. (I see you snipped the part of my post where I repeated the question about James. And replaced my "question" with "questionS." Did the one particular question make you uncomfortable? Do you see why I find your whole response disingenuous?
Would you deign to re-post the answer about James I seem to have missed? Or at least link to the post which allegedly had an answer to the question about James?
I do understand that some of you get annoyed by my use of emphasis in text. But I was flabbergasted by the way you managed to convert a question about James into some generic "questions." I hope the text emphasis here will put the "debate" -- if that's what this is -- back on track.
ETA: Here is the actual Swammi question which got snipped:
. . . all of you . . . have NO answer whatsoever for the question of James, "Jesus's brother." Last time I checked Carrier was going with a PARTIAL solution based on James' brother being Jesus ben Damneus. Do you guys follow your leader on that?
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I am not Jewish and I don't keep kosher, but I had some Hebrew National kosher hot dogs yesterday.
Maybe that will give some points when I am at the Pearly Gates.
Maybe that will give some points when I am at the Pearly Gates.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I'm as interested in discussing James as you are interested in discussing Hemingway's Santiago. And that's okay with me. We're not discussing James's historicity or one of Hemingway's characters.
The suggestion that the gospel stories are heroic fictional accounts by anonymous authors bothers some people greatly. The vast, vast, vast majority of those people have never penned a creative bit of fiction in their lives and so do not have the perspective of an author or storyteller. I'm okay with that. That fact, however, does not change the historical record. Based on that record a fictional Jesus is as legitimate as a historical or semi-historical one.
When pushed, the reactionary guru retreats to "both sides are equal," then, when the heat is off, reverts to insisting that only his own weird view is acceptable.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Moogly, Moogly, Moogly. I think of you as one of my best friends here.
Yet you persist in insulting me ... and insulting yourself. 
Santiago's fictionality is not in doubt -- these persistent non sequiturs are just ... pointless.
You imply that you (plural?) have presented answers to my questions. But then refuse to discuss James. Or provide any reason to believe that answers have been presented.
Not only does the wrong-headed position of you and some others in this thread defy the opinion of 99+% of professional historians who have actually studied the question but you (plural) have demonstrated over and over that you know NOTHING about the actual historicity "controversy", and are just repeating "Myth myth myth" because it seems to suit an extremist atheist ideology. Or maybe you blindly follow Carrier the way some Christians blindly followed Jim and Tammy Bakker. Or Jim Jones in Jonestown. Please don't drink the Kool-Aid, my friend.
I m not a Buddhist, but professional historians tell me that Siddhartha almost certainly existed (despite that the evidence for him is much less than the evidence for Jesus' historicity. Do you think Siddhartha Gautama "the Buddha" actually existed? How about Confucius? How about Muhammad ibn Abdullah the alleged "Prophet of Allah"? Does your angry and unstudied atheism prevent you from accepting the historicity of any religious figures? Or is Jesus the alleged Christ a special case?
At the risk of repeating the obvious for the 39th time, neither of us thinks Jesus turned water into wine. The historicity debate is NOT about that.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I'm not insulting you, darling. "Fictionality" perfectly describes all the earlier incidents I mentioned when they were initially proposed. All turned out to be true. It just took time, interest and evidence to make the case. Today their factual veracity is only disputed by flat earther and bigfoot types.Moogly, Moogly, Moogly. I think of you as one of my best friends here.
Santiago's fictionality is not in doubt -- these persistent non sequiturs are just ... pointless.
It is and it isn't. Without all the religious woo there wouldn't even be a discussion, let alone a rational one based on evidence. I simply liken the Jesus story to the Joseph Smith story, the difference being Jesus is a person and Moroni is an angel. But both stories are religious baloney. I just don't think you're giving enough attention to the centuries of blind religious bias, and I question your appreciation for the experience of the authors of such works.
I really don't have an opinion on those other characters you mention. As far as the Jesus story I think I'm as informed as yourself.
I bring up Santiago because although the book is fiction it is quite plausible old Ernest had a particular person in mind. He certainly didn't invent Santiago whole cloth. And we don't have to speculate about the author or his life and experiences. The Jesus story is different because even what we read in the historical record is hearsay and translated hearsay. Why would anyone believe a psychotic Paul? Why would anyone redefine Chrestus as Christ? Why would anyone change Chrestian to Christian? Orthodox Shakespeare high priests do the same thing to the historical record by changing Shakspere to Shakespeare.
Last edited:
ideologyhunter
Contributor
I am not much interested in the 'controversy'. To me it's analogous to the anti-Stratfordian position that cropped up about Shakespeare -- unlikely, unprovable, and too irritating for me devote my time in exploring. I first read intimations of Christ Myth early in my reading of atheist source books, so, back in the 1970s. My reaction was the same as it is now: there is too much about the synoptic Jesus that seems idiosyncratic, that doesn't seem like a stock mythological template. Things like the terse way he answers the high priests at Luke 22:70: 'That is what you say.' Here was an opportunity for a myth maker to create a dramatic speech of self-definition, but that road isn't taken. Some of Jesus' pithiness (Render unto Caesar, etc.) points to one charismatic, concise speaker, and not a legend compiled by a group of scribes. The parables also point to one man teaching by metaphor.
There are the teachings that would not have been included, if the writers were concocting a hero who hadn't left some memories behind. Making an example of the fig tree is so weird that you have to ask if myth makers would have devised it.
My basic stand is the one Swammerdami gives above in post 1242.
Yes, blame the Christ Myth theory on all the bollocks that got added to the Jesus story after his death. Clearly, the Christians used the next few decades to bolster their story with faux prophecy from the OT. They even tell you they're doing it. They refashioned miracle stories of Elijah and Elisha to give their guy divine power. Believing that Jesus actually had his disciples catch a fish and find a coin in its mouth -- sorry, that just doesn't pass the common sense test. The mass suicide of 2000 hogs by drowning is literal hogwash. The story of the two thieves starts with both of them being miscreants but becomes a story of bad man/good man. Everyone knows about the zombie horde in MT 27. Sorry, Matthew, try Hollywood. By the time you get to John's gospel, there's a Jesus who doesn't sound remotely like the synoptic Jesus -- he not only has no parables, he speaks in extended prose poems. No one will ever be able to sort out the true history from the accretion of legend -- but to call it all a fabricated legend is -- to me -- just as impossible as to believe the supernatural stuff.
There are the teachings that would not have been included, if the writers were concocting a hero who hadn't left some memories behind. Making an example of the fig tree is so weird that you have to ask if myth makers would have devised it.
My basic stand is the one Swammerdami gives above in post 1242.
Yes, blame the Christ Myth theory on all the bollocks that got added to the Jesus story after his death. Clearly, the Christians used the next few decades to bolster their story with faux prophecy from the OT. They even tell you they're doing it. They refashioned miracle stories of Elijah and Elisha to give their guy divine power. Believing that Jesus actually had his disciples catch a fish and find a coin in its mouth -- sorry, that just doesn't pass the common sense test. The mass suicide of 2000 hogs by drowning is literal hogwash. The story of the two thieves starts with both of them being miscreants but becomes a story of bad man/good man. Everyone knows about the zombie horde in MT 27. Sorry, Matthew, try Hollywood. By the time you get to John's gospel, there's a Jesus who doesn't sound remotely like the synoptic Jesus -- he not only has no parables, he speaks in extended prose poems. No one will ever be able to sort out the true history from the accretion of legend -- but to call it all a fabricated legend is -- to me -- just as impossible as to believe the supernatural stuff.