The Christ Myth Theory

[Politesse]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler.

Actually, that's an incredibly common hypothesis concerning the Jesus materials.

Your definition of historicity re gospels is different from everyone's but everyone uses the same words: historical. In past discussions people have told me it was a person baptized by JTB and killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews. That probably narrows the field down to thousands. But there are other definitions, all taken together probably narrow the field down to a few tens of thousands of persons, maybe more.

The fact is that everything is historical to a degree so no argument. Rudolph is based on a reindeer. Bunyan is based on a lumberjack. These are real historical things.

And no one is denying that this is a historical topic, as near as I can see. So what's your point? If you're concerned that some people you used to know might disagree, call them up and invite them to join the discussion. I won't converse with imaginary interlocutors.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler.

Actually, that's an incredibly common hypothesis concerning the Jesus materials.

Your definition of historicity re gospels is different from everyone's but everyone uses the same words: historical. In past discussions people have told me it was a person baptized by JTB and killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews. That probably narrows the field down to thousands. But there are other definitions, all taken together probably narrow the field down to a few tens of thousands of persons, maybe more.

The fact is that everything is historical to a degree so no argument. Rudolph is based on a reindeer. Bunyan is based on a lumberjack. These are real historical things.

And no one is denying that this is a historical topic, as near as I can see. So what's your point? If you're concerned that some people you used to know might disagree, call them up and invite them to join the discussion. I won't converse with imaginary interlocutors.

My point is simply that to some people Paul Bunyan is historical because it's about lumberjacks and lumberjacks are historically real. I think such persons don't understand the whole enterprise of fictional writing. For me he's fictional, same as Rhett Butler or name your character from your favorite novel. There is no agreed upon criteria for declaring historicity.

 

[Politesse]

The character of Jesus in the gospels is obviously fictional and "historicity" is never defined for purposes of the discussion as to whether the character is based on an actual person, such as the case of Rhett Butler.

Actually, that's an incredibly common hypothesis concerning the Jesus materials.

Your definition of historicity re gospels is different from everyone's but everyone uses the same words: historical. In past discussions people have told me it was a person baptized by JTB and killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews. That probably narrows the field down to thousands. But there are other definitions, all taken together probably narrow the field down to a few tens of thousands of persons, maybe more.

The fact is that everything is historical to a degree so no argument. Rudolph is based on a reindeer. Bunyan is based on a lumberjack. These are real historical things.

And no one is denying that this is a historical topic, as near as I can see. So what's your point? If you're concerned that some people you used to know might disagree, call them up and invite them to join the discussion. I won't converse with imaginary interlocutors.

My point is simply that to some people Paul Bunyan is historical because it's about lumberjacks and lumberjacks are historically real. I think such persons don't understand the whole enterprise of fictional writing. For me he's fictional, same as Rhett Butler or name your character from your favorite novel. There is no agreed upon criteria for declaring historicity.

"Fiction" is an even more anachronistic concept than "history", in the context of this discussion.

I'm not sure what you think the usual context for talking about the "historical Jesus" even is, to be honest. I generally think of historical Jesus studies as the entire subject matter of trying to place Jesus of Nazareth within a historical context, a topic on which there are a great many theories and ideas, and have been for centuries but especially since the 19th century. You seem to be imagining that the "historical Jesus" is one particular claim, which is the antithesis of the "mythical Jesus"? Or what is it you are trying to say? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but the words you have typed have been a bit confusing, so I am inviting you to clarify.

 

[Copernicus]

It seems to me that the concept of mythicism is similarly fraught, because every real historical figure can have details about their lives be considered true but were actually false. It is certainly true that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have undergone some process of mythologization. I like McGrath's point about Jesus being a real figure who was mythologized. I do not know the details of what he believed to be actually true about the life of the historical figure he imagines, so I don't buy into his historicism. However, as the debate continues, I get the feeling that the question of whether or not an actual historical Jesus existed and kicked off the cult following is perhaps the least interesting question. What is more interesting is the process by which the mythologization of the real or apocryphal figure grew and spread. I'm sure that there are many people who believe that there was an actual  John Frum, but that isn't what is interesting about the evolution of the Cargo Cult religion.

 

[dbz]

...I get the feeling that the question of whether or not an actual historical Jesus existed and kicked off the cult following is perhaps the least interesting question. What is more interesting is the process by which the mythologization of the real or apocryphal figure grew and spread.

• Pattenden, Miles (19 January 2022). "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics.

[W]hat makes 'Jesus', Jesus? Is it enough that a man called Jesus (or Joshua), who became a charismatic teacher, was born around the turn of the millennium in Palestine? What additional characteristics do we need to ascribe to the historical figure to make him on balance identifiable with the scriptural one? A baptism in the river Jordan? A sermon on the Mount? Death at the hands of Pontius Pilate? What else? Partly because there is no way to satisfy these queries, professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.

 

[Politesse]

See, that actually makes sense.

 

[neilgodfrey]

In any case, the real Jesus is still being invented and/or discovered. In that sense, not much has changed.

Another irony is that most Christians do indeed believe in a Jesus who is alive in heaven, who cares personally for them, who was very much the person found in the gospels -- so in that sense, the question of "historical Jesus" is irrelevant for most believers: a mythical Jesus is all there is and all they need.

 

[dbz]

"Fiction" is an even more anachronistic concept than "history", in the context of this discussion.

In the "Jesus: Fact or Fiction?" debate between Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin, Price states that "there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a fiction":

1. "The central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual", i.e. the Jesus of the Gospels is little more than "a synthetic construct
   
   of theologians, a symbolic 'Uncle Sam' figure."[note 4]
2. "The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him" to the point that "even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more."
3. "Jesus as the personal savior, with whom people claim, as I used to, to have a 'personal relationship' is in the nature of the case a fiction, essentially a psychological projection, an 'imaginary playmate.'"
4. "Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, in an unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a vast system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked."[44]

 

[Swammerdami]

• "Reading Josephus on James: On Valliant Flunking Literary Theory". Richard Carrier Blogs. 24 December 2021.

On the broader point of why we can be certain (if we commit to avoiding fallacies and only making inferences from the actual evidence) that neither reference to Jesus Christ now in the Antiquities of Josephus were there when he published (nor indeed put there until over a century later) see my summary of the latest research in Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014. I have addressed other weird fumbles in applying literary analysis to the James passage in particular in “What Did Josephus Mean by That?” A Case Study in the Relationship between Evidence and Probability (where I show Dennis MacDonald flubbing basic principles to defend a pet theory) and Mason on Josephus on James (where I show Steve Mason lazily deploying self-contradictory reasoning to get results contrary to any sound literary analysis) and, most poignantly, More Asscrankery from Tim O’Neill (some of which asscrankery Valliant repeated, uncredited, in our debate; evidently unaware of my empirical refutations, he allowed himself to be influenced by a notorious liar).

So Carrier informs us, in the quoted article, that Carrier has argued against historicity in OTHER articles. Hmmm. I wonder what those arguments were.

Carrier, Richard (2012). "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200". Journal of Early Christian Studies. 20 (4): 489–514. doi:10.1353/earl.2012.0029.

[T]he reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians.

So Carrier tells us what Carrier believes. I'll guess Carrier argues in favor of his own opinion in some OTHER article.

I find the topic interesting, but not interesting enough to embark on a clicking escapade. I want to be spoon-fed! Quoting Carrier as citing a Carrier article in which he cites other Carrier articles which argue against historicity is less useful to me than actually excerpting those arguments!

I still don't know what's wrong with the common-sense arguments for historicity I gave earlier.

The one specific criticism to my common-sense argument was that 'Chrestians' and 'Christians' are spelled differently! But both these words appear morphologically to be English and I don't think we need hire a linguistic scholar to confirm that English was not used in 2nd-century Rome! (Presumably "Chrestian/Christian" is used as short-hand for some Greek or Latin spelling inconsistency, but even then seems like desperate straw-grasping.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The one specific criticism to my common-sense argument was that 'Chrestians' and 'Christians' are spelled differently! But both these words appear morphologically to be English and I don't think we need hire a linguistic scholar to confirm that English was not used in 2nd-century Rome! (Presumably "Chrestian/Christian" is used as short-hand for some Greek or Latin spelling inconsistency, but even then seems like desperate straw-grasping.)

I can post a couple links that are thought provoking on the subject if you wish, but googling will find those same articles. If it was simply a case of different spellings such has been claimed similarly with regards to Stratfordians, then we would see a distribution of different spellings over those early centuries. But that is not the case. It is spelled with an "e" (speaking in english) and not an "i" for all the early centuries and then abruptly changed with evidence on extant documents that this change was deliberate. It is an interesting aspect of the subject of christian beginnings. Speaking personally when I see Chrestus I do not see Christ but everyone else does. Why? Because that's been tradition. Did someone say Stratfordian?

 

[dbz]

The one specific criticism to my common-sense argument was that 'Chrestians' and 'Christians' are spelled differently! But both these words appear morphologically to be English and I don't think we need hire a linguistic scholar to confirm that English was not used in 2nd-century Rome! (Presumably "Chrestian/Christian" is used as short-hand for some Greek or Latin spelling inconsistency, but even then seems like desperate straw-grasping.)

Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus"​

When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”

—Matthew V. Novenson[11]

In the authentic letters (epistles) of Paul, every reference to Χριστός (Christ) was abbreviated as ΧΣ.[12] Bart Willruth notes:

You ask, “Does Paul never spell out “christos”?​

We don’t know. If he did, then some later copyists abbreviated it and no other copyist preserved it. The evidence we have is that ALL copies of old manuscripts, prior to the fourth century, used the abbreviation XS. The overwhelming probability is that Paul’s original manuscripts also used that abbreviation. Later readers and copyists didn’t know the original intent. Some rendered it “chrestos” while others rendered it “christos”. It appears that the earlier interpretation was “chrestos”. In any event, Paul never explained the meaning of his abbreviations and it was left to later users of the text to “divine” his intent, based on their own wishes or expectations.[13]

• "Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

Many Roman era inscriptions bear the name Chrestus, and the phrase Chrestiani could indeed refer to a family or group associated with a Chrestus, as it was a common name.

 

[Politesse]

The one specific criticism to my common-sense argument was that 'Chrestians' and 'Christians' are spelled differently! But both these words appear morphologically to be English and I don't think we need hire a linguistic scholar to confirm that English was not used in 2nd-century Rome! (Presumably "Chrestian/Christian" is used as short-hand for some Greek or Latin spelling inconsistency, but even then seems like desperate straw-grasping.)

Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus"​

When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”

—Matthew V. Novenson[11]

In the authentic letters (epistles) of Paul, every reference to Χριστός (Christ) was abbreviated as ΧΣ.[12] Bart Willruth notes:

You ask, “Does Paul never spell out “christos”?​

We don’t know. If he did, then some later copyists abbreviated it and no other copyist preserved it. The evidence we have is that ALL copies of old manuscripts, prior to the fourth century, used the abbreviation XS. The overwhelming probability is that Paul’s original manuscripts also used that abbreviation. Later readers and copyists didn’t know the original intent. Some rendered it “chrestos” while others rendered it “christos”. It appears that the earlier interpretation was “chrestos”. In any event, Paul never explained the meaning of his abbreviations and it was left to later users of the text to “divine” his intent, based on their own wishes or expectations.[13]

• "Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

Many Roman era inscriptions bear the name Chrestus, and the phrase Chrestiani could indeed refer to a family or group associated with a Chrestus, as it was a common name.

If Chrestus was truly a common name, then the argument boils down to "Kaiser Wilhelm cannot have existed, as in 1951 there is a passing reference in an English periodical to a war waged by 'Kaiser Bill'. Short of conspiracy or invention, there is no other way to explain why there would be two similar but not identical spellings of a name in the historical record."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Chrestus was truly a common name, then the argument boils down to "Kaiser Wilhelm cannot have existed, as in 1951 there is a passing reference in an English periodical to a war waged by 'Kaiser Bill'. Short of conspiracy or invention, there is no other way to explain why there would be two similar but not identical spellings of a name in the historical record."

Chrestus and Christos are not different spellings of the same word. They are different words.

 

[dbz]

Chrestus and Christos are not different spellings of the same word. They are different words.

Also .. Outside the  Septuagint, Christos is never used as a title or name in the BCE period; only as e.g. myróchristos meaning  Myrrh perfumed  pomade.

In the first century CE, Christos in the Septuagint, was understood to be the Greek term for Hebrew māšīyaḥ.

 

[Swammerdami]

Was the name "Chrst" or "Chrest"?

But even assuming "Chrest" was some distinct name, what about "Chrestian"? (Or the Greco-Roman equivalent, assuming 2nd-century Rome did not speak English.) We don't speak of Donaldians, Trumpians or Boebertians when referring to present-day Messiahs. Is it likely that Chrest — whoever he was — would have been honored with a cult whose name had the same morphology as the Greek word for Messiah worshippers?

ETA: And how do you explain parallels between the writings of Paul and Tacitus? Did some clever 2nd-century writer notice the Christ/Chrest confusion and exploit it in his construction of a false Pauline narrative? William of Ockham is rolling over in his grave.

 

[dbz]

[H]ow do you explain parallels between the writings of Paul and Tacitus? Did some clever 2nd-century writer notice the Christ/Chrest confusion and exploit it in his construction of a false Pauline narrative? William of Ockham is rolling over in his grave.

Paul worshiped a god whose name was only ever given as abbreviated ΧΣ. (see Second-god (Christ) §. Paul's "Christ" or "Chrestus")

• Per Richard Carrier October 2, 2019, 11:39 am

(1) Suetonius mentions Christians as persecuted by Nero but does not know of any connection between that and the fire at Rome. This may be an interpolated line, but the evidence to confirm that is too weak to be confident.


(2) Suetonius separately mentions riots in Rome instigated by a certain Jewish leader named Chrestus under Claudius (not Nero) in the 50s A.D. Many have attempted to connect this to Christianity somehow but there is no credible reason to.


(3) Tacitus’s text as we have it speaks clearly of a Christ executed by Pilate under Tiberius who inspired the “Chrestians” which a later copyist “fixed” into “Christians” (the e was erased and replaced with an i), who were blamed for the fire at Rome under Nero.


(4) This text might be authentic up to the Chrestians being blamed, but yet have one interpolated line linking the Chrestians to Christ. In a peer reviewed journal (which article is what is reproduced in Hitler Homer) I presented abundant evidence that this indeed is what happened. No one knew of any connection between the fire at Rome and Nero’s persecution of Christians until we start seeing it reflected in legendary and forged material in the 4th century, despite many prior authors, including Christian authors, knowing the text of Tacitus and writing about the persecution of Christians under Nero, which is just one of many evidences that’s very improbable unless Tacutus’s text about Chrestians never connected them to Christ (until the text was “fixed” to say that sometime in the 4th century).


Once you sort all that out, the issue is not that no one knew of a legendary persecution of Christians under Nero until the 4th century; rather, no one had any idea it had any connection to the fire at Rome, the unique contribution of the text of Tacitus. So there is no difficulty explaining the demonization of Nero in Revelation. Even if we were to assume that was due to his persecuting Christians; but as we know Christians often fabricated or exaggerated their claims of persecution (see Moss, The Myth of Persecution), even that might not have been meaningfully true but just believed by the end of the first century (in the same way later legends grew of Domitian persecuting Christians, out of reports that originally said those he persecuted were Jews, with no connection to Christianity).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Short of conspiracy or invention, there is no other way to explain why there would be two similar but not identical spellings of a name in the historical record."

We've all heard the phrase "conspiracy of ignorance." One needn't be intentional in one musings and dealings to fuel and pass along erroneous information. If one wished to be "free" in those days one could move into caves or isolated settlements along the Dead Sea with all one's other adult males such as was the case at Qumran and to a lesser extent Ein Gedi. Of course in such cases one is free of one authority but subservient to another.

 

[Copernicus]

Short of conspiracy or invention, there is no other way to explain why there would be two similar but not identical spellings of a name in the historical record."

We've all heard the phrase "conspiracy of ignorance." One needn't be intentional in one musings and dealings to fuel and pass along erroneous information. If one wished to be "free" in those days one could move into caves or isolated settlements along the Dead Sea with all one's other adult males such as was the case at Qumran and to a lesser extent Ein Gedi. Of course in such cases one is free of one authority but subservient to another.

The two names had different origins, but it is easily possible that they could have been confused by subsequent generations of scribes who sought to correct what might have appeared to be an alternative spelling. Interpolations of that sort happened all the time in the historical record, and they can often, but not always, be detected by diligent scholars.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thanks for the response, dbz!

[H]ow do you explain parallels between the writings of Paul and Tacitus? Did some clever 2nd-century writer notice the Christ/Chrest confusion and exploit it in his construction of a false Pauline narrative? William of Ockham is rolling over in his grave.

Paul worshiped a god whose name was only ever given as abbreviated ΧΣ.
...
(1) Suetonius mentions Christians as persecuted by Nero but does not know of any connection between that and the fire at Rome. This may be an interpolated line, but the evidence to confirm that is too weak to be confident.

(1) The fire is irrelevant. The meme is to testify that there were "Christians" or "Chrestians" living in Rome during the reign of Nero. That they were active enough for Nero to feel threatened suggests that they were active in Judaea — or wherever they came from — a few decades earlier, i.e. soon after the alleged Crucifixion.

(2) Suetonius separately mentions riots in Rome instigated by a certain Jewish leader named Chrestus under Claudius (not Nero) in the 50s A.D. Many have attempted to connect this to Christianity somehow but there is no credible reason to.

(2) Are you saying Tacitus and Suetonius spelled the name differently?

(3) Tacitus’s text as we have it speaks clearly of a Christ executed by Pilate under Tiberius who inspired the “Chrestians” which a later copyist “fixed” into “Christians” (the e was erased and replaced with an i), who were blamed for the fire at Rome under Nero.

(3) Crucified under Pontius Pilate? Named Christ or Chrest? Show also that he came from Nazareth and I win!

(4) This text might be authentic up to the Chrestians being blamed, but yet have one interpolated line linking the Chrestians to Christ. In a peer reviewed journal (which article is what is reproduced in Hitler Homer) I presented abundant evidence that this indeed is what happened. No one knew of any connection between the fire at Rome and Nero’s persecution of Christians until we start seeing it reflected in legendary and forged material in the 4th century, despite many prior authors, including Christian authors, knowing the text of Tacitus and writing about the persecution of Christians under Nero, which is just one of many evidences that’s very improbable unless Tacutus’s text about Chrestians never connected them to Christ (until the text was “fixed” to say that sometime in the 4th century).

(4) Idle speculation. By this time, I'm treating Carrier's opinions as contrary indicators

Once you sort all that out, the issue is not that no one knew of a legendary persecution of Christians under Nero until the 4th century; rather, no one had any idea it had any connection to the fire at Rome, the unique contribution of the text of Tacitus. So there is no difficulty explaining the demonization of Nero in Revelation

Again, any connection to the Fire is irrelevant to my argument. I simply infer that there was some Jewish cult called "Christians" (or "Chrestians") that became active probably during the 30's AD, probably in or near Judaea.

persecuting Christians, out of reports that originally said those he persecuted were Jews, with no connection to Christianity).

AFAIK, no one has refuted my other common-sense ideas:
(1b) Don't Paul and Josephus refer to the same historic James? The lack of early Gospel documents just reflects the ease with which old documents are lost.

(2) Parts of the Gospels make little sense as myth, but could be used to excuse uncomfortable facts. As just one example, why is a prophet without honor in his own country? Most likely it was to explain the uncomfortable fact that some of his early acquaintances did not think he was the Messiah.

(3) Why invent a fictitious "Messiah" when there were real claimants, e.g. John the Baptist, to choose from?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The two names had different origins, but it is easily possible that they could have been confused by subsequent generations of scribes who sought to correct what might have appeared to be an alternative spelling. Interpolations of that sort happened all the time in the historical record, and they can often, but not always, be detected by diligent scholars.

Petri dish, peach-tree dish. I don't think future scholars will be easily confused.