The Christ Myth Theory

[dbz]

I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Miracles. 99 times wasn't enough for you Billy Boy?

You appear to be so caught up in your emotional need to be right, that you didn't notice that I was agreeing with you.

And Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history.

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

—The contamination principle of Stephen Law (Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151)

Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Miracles. 99 times wasn't enough for you Billy Boy?

You appear to be so caught up in your emotional need to be right, that you didn't notice that I was agreeing with you.

And Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history.

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

—The contamination principle of Stephen Law (Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151)

Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."

Pretty much Swammi's argument is that if most authorities on the subject say so then it must be true. It's a very emotional and unreasoned position but explains in a large part the human experience for many. Don't ask, don't challenge, don't rock the boat.

 

[steve_bank]

The war of dueling links and quotes.

 

[Learner]

I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Miracles. 99 times wasn't enough for you Billy Boy?

You appear to be so caught up in your emotional need to be right, that you didn't notice that I was agreeing with you.

And Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history.

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

—The contamination principle of Stephen Law (Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151)

Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."

Pretty much Swammi's argument is that if most authorities on the subject say so then it must be true. It's a very emotional and unreasoned position but explains in a large part the human experience for many. Don't ask, don't challenge, don't rock the boat.

As irony would have it:
The 'don't rock the boat' phrase has often been the portrayal of the atheists standpoint imo, when they mention the word 'consensus'.

 

[dbz]

We doubt the existence of Hercules...

Ancient Sources for Hercules' Burial​

The claim that Hercules was buried and deified (I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Deified Miracle) is primarily supported by ancient Greek and Roman sources.

Key ancient sources:

• Strabo: The Greek geographer Strabo, in his Geography, mentions Cadiz as a place associated with Hercules. He describes the city as founded by Hercules and notes its connection to the legendary hero.
• Pliny the Elder: In his Natural History, Pliny the Elder also references Cadiz as a place connected to Hercules. He mentions the city's foundation and its association with the hero.
• Diodorus Siculus: The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, in his Historical Library, provides a detailed account of Hercules' labors and his eventual death. His narrative places the hero's final journey in the Iberian Peninsula, which includes the region where Cadiz is located.

The consistent references to Cadiz in ancient texts make it a compelling candidate for the hero's final resting place.

However the biography of Hercules can only be guessed at. But likely he was a celebrated in Cadiz for his chronic erection syndrome (priapism)—that was then amplified in legendary tales about his godly stamina to service several women each night and to rise again with the dawn.

 

[dbz]

The 'don't rock the boat' phrase has often been the portrayal of the atheists standpoint...

• Some boats are more capable than others of being rocked and not capsizing!

 

[No Robots]

^The whole Jesus mythomania is alt-right grift. There's no one the reactionaries hate more than Jesus, that commie Jew bastard.

The "Mythicists" are certainly crackpots. but they are NOT alt-right grifters. The alt-right pretends to be Christian and seeks money. But AFAIK there's little or no money in their Mythomania, except for their Prophet himself, the bookwriter Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD.

The mythomaniacs are alt-right in the sense that they are attempting to eliminate from history the most powerful spokesman for freedom, equality and justice. The only way forward for humanity is with Jesus and Marx. The reactionaries know this, and, in an effort to block the advent of universal communism, these reactionaries are intent on blocking all attempts to make use of the work of these revolutionary leaders .

 

[Swammerdami]

[lots and lots of words ...]

... BUT zero mentions of James the Brother.

So, are you one of the detectives that would just ignore the smoking gun when called to a murder scene?

 

[dbz]

...zero mentions of James the Brother.

The Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure was derived from an amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) rather than a single HJ.

The sourced historical personages for the Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure likely had 3-5 brothers named James and each with a different father+mother.

The first historical personage to start the amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) recipe is: Jesus ben Ananias,

[The Markan] sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the ‘Jesus of Jerusalem’, an insane prophet active in the 60s CE who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70).
His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus.

Or if Josephus invented the tale then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. [Theodore Weeden, ‘Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation’, Forum N.S. 6.2 (Fall 2003), pp. 137–341; Craig Evans, ‘Jesus in Non-Christian Sources’, in Studying the Historical Jesus (ed. Chilton and Evans), pp. 443–78 (475–77).]

(pp. 428–429 )

---

--Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5.

• Evans, Craig A. (1993). "Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action". Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 3: 93–110 (p. 106, n. 47.) "There are several important parallels between the temple-related experiences of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus son of Ananias."
• Weeden, Theodore J. (2003). "Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation". Forum NS (Westar Institute: Polebridge Press) 6 (2): 137–341. ISSN 0883-4970.

Weeden does not view the oracle of Jesus-Ananias as a real warning in the early 60s . . . but as an invention of Josephus
[...]
Weeden concludes that the New Testament texts are all directly dependent on the text of Josephus. . . . [Weeden] makes a case for Mark's access to book 6 of Judean War through the channels of Agrippa II and the Jewish community [in Caesarea Philippi] . . . This would mean that the Gospel of Mark and the redaction of Q could not have been written before the early 80s.

(pp. 263–264)

---

--Miller, Merrill P. (2017). "The Social Logic of the Gospel of Mark: Cultural Persistence and Social Escape in a Postwar Time". In Crawford, B. S.; Miller, M. P.. Redescribing the Gospel of Mark. SBL Press. pp. 207–400. ISBN 978-0-88414-203-4.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure was derived from an amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) rather than a single HJ.

The sourced historical personages for the Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure likely had 3-5 brothers named James and each with a different father+mother.

The first historical personage to start the amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) recipe is: Jesus ben Ananias,

I don't think our good friend Swammi is aware of all the other evidence against his Jesus, to include all the other Jesus characters. James the brother of the Lord is certainly not the smoking gun he thinks it is. Considering the fact that the gospels are full of tall tales we have more credible information on James than we do on the alleged HJ.

 

[steve_bank]

Allegory has been around since the 3rd century when the biblical scholar Origen of Alexander suggested that the Bible be read allegorically for the full complexity of its meaning to be revealed. The literal sense simply could not encompass the varied meaning and messages of the text.

Allegory Defined

sites.up.edu

The literal meaning of this fable is the story of the wolf that puts on a sheepskin and is killed because of it. The symbolic meaning connects the wolf and all of mankind. A person who deceives might profit from it, but will ultimately come to some sort of harm. The literal meaning is inherently non-sensical and requires the symbolic meaning to make sense of it.

Aesop's Fables - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fables originally belonged to oral tradition and were not collected for some three centuries after Aesop's death. By that time, a variety of other stories, jokes and proverbs were being ascribed to him, although some of that material was from sources earlier than him or came from beyond the Greek cultural sphere. The process of inclusion has continued until the present, with some of the fables unrecorded before the Late Middle Ages and others arriving from outside Europe. The process is continuous and new stories are still being added to the Aesop corpus, even when they are demonstrably more recent work and sometimes from known authors.

Sounds like how the gospels came to be.

Modern versions of talking animal allegorists. Porky Pig, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck.

The talking snake in bible could have been more instructive as a wise ass bunny.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sounds like how the gospels came to be.

Modern versions of talking animal allegorists. Porky Pig, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck.

The talking snake in bible could have been more instructive as a wise ass bunny.

The argument has been made that because there were no claims that the gospel protagonist wasn't a real person is because it was accepted widely or else taken for granted that he was. Hence no disagreement about his alleged historicity. I've not run across any serious disagreement abut the characters you mention, to include all the superheroes. Should we therefore assume that such silence is proof of their actual historicity such as some claim about the gospel protagonist? Are there any scholarly papers around arguing that superman isn't historical for example?

 

[Janice Rael]

Hey. I'm on my cellphone and can't look this up now. But, is it not true that Saint Augustine was a major shaper of Middle Ages Christianity?

I read something about Augustine that said he was such a prolific author that he often contradicted himself, and, The Church chose to use only some of his writings to tailor the theology of the day.

Can anyone confirm or deny any of these things that are, I suppose, my cloudy brain's main takeaways from whatever Augustine rabbit hole I read down?

I'm now in worse pain from using my cellphone. Karma is Rael.

Please, everyone who dislikes me, find it funny that I'm in agonizing and unrelenting pain that gets worse when I post.

Anyway, it wasn't Wikipedia, but the source was relatively unbiased, iirc. But my memory could be faulty on this matter, until I read more.

 

[steve_bank]

Augustine's writings soulld be on line. He is considered a major figure in the RCC. The idea of a little pain and suffering is good for the sou I believe is traced to Augustine. As in self physical self abuse. Like the cilice pain bracelet worn on the thigh. You can buy them online. The RCC Opus Dei society.

Religious confraternities devoted to penance through self-flagellation were common in Spain and in St. Augustine of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly among the hidalgo classes. Whips with small metal tips like this were used by penitents to scourge themselves during “Processions of the Blood.”Jan 20, 2022

https://harmlessnecrophilia.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-confessions-of-saint-augustine/

Cilice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He is said to have uttered 'Lord gibe me chastity...but not yet!'.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like how the gospels came to be.

Modern versions of talking animal allegorists. Porky Pig, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck.

The talking snake in bible could have been more instructive as a wise ass bunny.

The argument has been made that because there were no claims that the gospel protagonist wasn't a real person is because it was accepted widely or else taken for granted that he was. Hence no disagreement about his alleged historicity. I've not run across any serious disagreement abut the characters you mention, to include all the superheroes. Should we therefore assume that such silence is proof of their actual historicity such as some claim about the gospel protagonist? Are there any scholarly papers around arguing that superman isn't historical for example?

Man vs myth is a common story.

JFK was elevated to mythical status while in office. The White House was called Camelot in the media, Jackie was a queen.

Reporters knew but nobody published it. JFK was a serial adulterer in the WH. Jackie went along with presenting the image of a happy family and wife.

Oral stories leading to single Jesus in gospels elevated to a son of a god was probably not unique in the ancient world.

Declaring a lineage to a god was a traditional way of shoring up power. Creating a demigod Jesus was obviously Greek/Roman. It would appeal to gentiles.

In his lifetime, Caesar was the recipient of divine honours, a practice (adapted from the protocols of Hellenistic monarchy) that was, by the second half of the first century BC, far from novel in Rome. But, Koortbojian insists, Caesar, however much he was likened to the gods, was not one of them until after his death.

As I have said before after my time on the forum I take the gospel Jesus to be a conflation of people and events with supernatural as embellishment, again nothing new in the ancient world.. Whoever a singular HJ may have been is not knowable.

Despite Leviticus and Jesus as a Jew gays have argued that because Jesus never said anything about gays it is ok by Jesus.

The endless spin and self serving interpretation.

About Superman, we know it is fiction because we can trace the origins.

We can evaluate the giosel Jesus because we knw it is in a common supernaturtal form that predates Jesus.

 

[dbz]

I read something about Augustine that said he was such a prolific author that he often contradicted himself...

**Augustine's Contradictions:**

* **** Augustine wrote extensively over many years. His views evolved, and sometimes he did contradict earlier ideas.
* **** These contradictions sometimes arose from addressing different audiences or disparate theological problems.

**Church's Selection of Writings:**

* **** The Church did canonize certain works of Augustine, elevating them to a higher status.
* **** This selection was based on theological significance and alignment with broader Church doctrine and perhaps simply to hide contradictions.

 

[Swammerdami]

The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely. Let me write that again:
The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely.

When someone like Carrier concocts a complicated set of scenarios that might seem to dispose of a quandary, we don't ask "Is this farfetched 'solution' good enough to hold up for our fictional movie?" We ask: Is this solution LIKELY?

James the Brother was not some minor character. Historians describe him as the leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. Simon Peter was the "Bishop of Rome" while James was the "Bishop of Bishops." That he's never mentioned in Sunday School ( ) is due to the Roman Church's insistence that Jesus was an only child -- the Myth of the Perpetual Virgin, a notion for which there is no Biblical evidence. (Yes, there WAS a lot of myth-making in Christianity: That's why the EARLIEST sources (e.g. Gospels and Epistles) are the BEST sources.

I've never called Richard Carrier a moron. No doubt he has a higher IQ than most of his disciples. He knew he had to concoct some "solution" to the Brother-James quandary, and he did! (Did he need FOUR distinct Jameses? Or were THREE enough?) The question posed to us is NOT to list the gaping holes in Carrier's concoction (although there ARE gaping holes), but rather: Is this solution LIKELY?

I am reminded of the famous poem by Emily Dickinson:

I'm James the Just! Who are you?
Are you a James the Just too?
Then there's four of us! – don't tell!
They'll conflate us all, you know!

. . .

...zero mentions of James the Brother.

The Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure was derived from an amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) rather than a single HJ.

The sourced historical personages for the Gospel Jesus (GJ) figure likely had 3-5 brothers named James and each with a different father+mother.

Up to FIVE Jameses?? I thought Lord Richard could make do with four.
No problem; make six or seven Jameses if you need them. There's a fool born every minute!

Paul shows James (the Just) as leader of the early Christians. "Luke" shows James (the Just) as leader of the early Christians.
That's two DIFFERENT Jameses? Was one of them the leader of the Christians and the other leader of the Chrestians?
Jesus Christ and Jesus Chrest EACH had a brother named James the Just?

(I'm having fun here! I'll let the professional historians "refute" Lord Richard. What's that? They don't bother to refute his malarkey?)

The first historical personage to start the amalgam of Historical personages (AJ) recipe is: Jesus ben Ananias,

[The Markan] sequence of the Passover narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the ‘Jesus of Jerusalem’, an insane prophet active in the 60s CE who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70).
His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War

Jesus ben Ananias became famous AFTER the death of James the Just (aka James ben Ananias?). This renders Carrier's clever concoction not quite so clever. Capische?
And let's not forget that Josephus' works were written AFTER the Markan narrative was created, after Acts was written and long after the author of Galatians was dead. Did Josephus upload preprints to arXiv.org before he wrote his works down on parchment?

, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus.

Or if Josephus invented the tale then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence....

Note that all of this alleged myth-making and preprint downloading must have occurred long AFTER the events in Acts and long AFTER Paul write his Epistle to the Galatians.

--Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5.

Same to you, buddy!

 

[bilby]

The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely. Let me write that again:
The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely.

...and in the absence of evidence, this simply means expressing an opinion.

Any historical evidence for or against an actual Jesus has long since been buried by a tsunami of Christian bullshit. They have been piling it on for two thousand years, and it has polluted everything.

Archaeological evidence for Jesus is a big fat zero. So all that remains is opinions.

Opinions are like arseholes.

 

[Swammerdami]

The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely. Let me write that again:
The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely.

...and in the absence of evidence, this simply means expressing an opinion.

Any historical evidence for or against an actual Jesus has long since been buried by a tsunami of Christian bullshit. They have been piling it on for two thousand years, and it has polluted everything.

Utter nonsense. If you had the smallest drop of knowledge on the topic, you'd not write the above. Let me try bold-face and a larger font:

Professional historians get their information about Jesus mainly from VERY EARLY texts. What the F**k "two thousand years of Christian bullshit" are you speaking of??? There are Gospel fragments preserved on parchment dated to the very early 2nd century. They confirm that the more complete texts from 4th century are quite close to the earliest Gospels. What the F**k "two thousand years of Christian bullshit" are you speaking of??? Do you really think professional historians focused on the 1st century base their research on 20th-century bullshit????

[Swammi wanders off, shaking his head in disbelief.]

Show ignored content

I see that no less than TWO members of my I List are begging for attention, probably just to insult me some more. If anyone else thinks they had something useful to write, please bring it to my attention. I do not click on the optional "Shows."

 

[bilby]

"Gospel fragments".

Any historical information from non-Christian sources?

Thought not.

The Gospels are not history. They are fiction, until proven otherwise by independent sources.

Of which none survive. Because Christians have spent two thousand years making damn sure that nothing that contradicts their Gospels survives.

There's your two thousand years of bullshit.

Bullshit isn't just bad stuff you invented; It's also good stuff you destroyed.

Why is a second century source suspect? Because it survived.