The Christ Myth Theory

[TomC]

Either way I doubt Jesus was ever real, just one of them many things I already wondered about things.

I don't see it that way at all. Obviously, Historical Jesus existed. The (first century equivalent of) the name was quite common.
Similarly, lots of people were condemned to crucifixion, mainly for anti-government activities. Judea had lots of people and groups violently opposed to the Roman oppressors and their Jewish lackeys.

The likelihood that a guy named Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion, by Pontius Pilate around 30ce, is a no brainer. Probably more than one.

Then there's the other details of his history. Mary and Joseph were common names. Lots of people lived in Galilee. The bio of historical Jesus is way beyond plausible.

That's completely different from the mythical Christ. The miracle working demigod. He was publicly executed, resurrected, preached for a few more weeks, then Ascended to Heaven and became part of a previously unknown pantheon, The Trinity. But hardly anyone noticed at the time. I think that it took a few years for Historical Jesus to morph into a Legend, which grew into a Myth once the legend was transplanted into the Greco Roman empire outside of Judea.

I find it interesting to speculate about what kernels of truth got wrapped in so many layers of legend that they became myth, and resulted in the religion that dominates the world I live in. But it's mostly speculation. There's almost no reality, beyond the most prosaic parts.
Tom

 

[FievelJ]

Either way I doubt Jesus was ever real, just one of them many things I already wondered about things.

I don't see it that way at all. Obviously, Historical Jesus existed. The (first century equivalent of) the name was quite common.
Similarly, lots of people were condemned to crucifixion, mainly for anti-government activities. Judea had lots of people and groups violently opposed to the Roman oppressors and their Jewish lackeys.

The likelihood that a guy named Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion, by Pontius Pilate around 30ce, is a no brainer. Probably more than one.

Then there's the other details of his history. Mary and Joseph were common names. Lots of people lived in Galilee. The bio of historical Jesus is way beyond plausible.

That's completely different from the mythical Christ. The miracle working demigod. He was publicly executed, resurrected, preached for a few more weeks, then Ascended to Heaven and became part of a previously unknown pantheon, The Trinity. But hardly anyone noticed at the time. I think that it took a few years for Historical Jesus to morph into a Legend, which grew into a Myth once the legend was transplanted into the Greco Roman empire outside of Judea.

I find it interesting to speculate about what kernels of truth got wrapped in so many layers of legend that they became myth, and resulted in the religion that dominates the world I live in. But it's mostly speculation. There's almost no reality, beyond the most prosaic parts.
Tom

No matter how much you want to make these suggestions, I doubt if there was a Jesus hung on a Cross, that it had anything to do with Christianity at all. Thing is it got a lot of stuff from Paganism, then condemns it.

(Atheist) and I don't believe this Jesus person ever existed in the first place, sorry.

 

[TomC]

No matter how much you want to make these suggestions, I doubt if there was a Jesus hung on a Cross, that it had anything to do with Christianity at all. Thing is it got a lot of stuff from Paganism, then condemns it.

I also doubt that historical Jesus had anything to do with modern Christianity. Quite the contrary, He was a Jewish guy who was appalled by Roman paganism. He'd be turning over in His grave if He knew what Paul and the Gospel writers turned His life story into.
That's not the same as "didn't exist". Of course historical Jesus existed. He just had nothing to do with the pagan mythology that developed years later. Then the myth got set into cultural concrete by some Romans in Nicea who called it The Creed.
Tom

 

[FievelJ]

No matter how much you want to make these suggestions, I doubt if there was a Jesus hung on a Cross, that it had anything to do with Christianity at all. Thing is it got a lot of stuff from Paganism, then condemns it.

I also doubt that historical Jesus had anything to do with modern Christianity. Quite the contrary, He was a Jewish guy who was appalled by Roman paganism. He'd be turning over in His grave if He knew what Paul and the Gospel writers turned His life story into.
That's not the same as "didn't exist". Of course historical Jesus existed. He just had nothing to do with the pagan mythology that developed years later. Then the myth got set into cultural concrete by some Romans in Nicea who called it The Creed.
Tom

Christianity and paganism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christianity came second, not first out of those.
The entire pregnant virgin idea came from Paganism, are you just trying to push Christianity?

 

[TomC]

Christianity came second, not first out of those.
The entire pregnant virgin idea came from Paganism, are you just trying to push Christianity?

Myths about demigods were old news in the Greco Roman world. That's why the myth of Jesus being God's Son worked there.
In the Jewish world, it's anathema. Heresy!

Similarly, Jesus status as a failed Messiah made Christianity heresy. He was gone and the Romans were still brutally oppressing God's Chosen People. The Christians kept promising that Jesus was about to return with a Host of Heavenly Warriors. Any day now! "While some of you standing here are still alive".
40 years later the Romans were demolishing the Temple. That was the end of that Jesus the Messiah thing, at least for the people who knew Him and what a Messiah is.

But the pagans in the Empire didn't care about any of that Jewish nonsense. Christianity continued to grow and evolve.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I also doubt that historical Jesus had anything to do with modern Christianity. Quite the contrary, He was a Jewish guy who was appalled by Roman paganism. He'd be turning over in His grave if He knew what Paul and the Gospel writers turned His life story into.
That's not the same as "didn't exist". Of course historical Jesus existed. He just had nothing to do with the pagan mythology that developed years later. Then the myth got set into cultural concrete by some Romans in Nicea who called it The Creed.

So you are saying there is a historical Jesus, same as there is a historical _______________ (fill in the blank). You are saying more specifically there is no historical Christian Jesus. Is that correct? If it is I agree but it's a pretty meaningless distinction as all conversation today about the historical Jesus is about the historical christian Jesus, the gospel protagonist.

 

[dbz]

So you are saying there is a historical Jesus, same as there is a historical _______________ (fill in the blank).

• Obviously! There were many named kings one of which was named with the common Jewish "David". LOL

 

[1Heidegger1!]

I've been debating the Christ Myth Theory lately on Twitter and did a blog post today on Secular Frontier about some of the ideas that were shared: https://secularfrontier.infidels.or...-jesus-exist-on-earth-or-start-out-as-a-myth/

 

[TomC]

I also doubt that historical Jesus had anything to do with modern Christianity. Quite the contrary, He was a Jewish guy who was appalled by Roman paganism. He'd be turning over in His grave if He knew what Paul and the Gospel writers turned His life story into.
That's not the same as "didn't exist". Of course historical Jesus existed. He just had nothing to do with the pagan mythology that developed years later. Then the myth got set into cultural concrete by some Romans in Nicea who called it The Creed.

So you are saying there is a historical Jesus, same as there is a historical _______________ (fill in the blank). You are saying more specifically there is no historical Christian Jesus. Is that correct? If it is I agree but it's a pretty meaningless distinction as all conversation today about the historical Jesus is about the historical christian Jesus, the gospel protagonist.

For what it's worth,
I don't find this discussion important. It's just interesting.
Interesting in the sense that the speculation is fun, but that's all it is. Speculation. It's like discussing professional sports, interesting but not important.

I'm confident that there was a historical figure who did nothing important except provide a legendary figurehead for a religious cult that came to dominate the Western world. He's been dust for 2000 years, completely forgotten. That's Jesus.

Then there's the miracle working demigod who is arguably the most important person in the modern world, despite never existing. That's Christ.

To me, the interesting part is speculation about the overlap. In what way is Historical Jesus the kernel of truth at the center of the legends that became the myth. But it doesn't really matter.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To me, the interesting part is speculation about the overlap. In what way is Historical Jesus the kernel of truth at the center of the legends that became the myth. But it doesn't really matter.

Okay. I think those things do matter so that's just me. For me the HJ is an author, maybe the author of GMark, most likely someone earlier. I liken the discussion to that of Shakespeare Authorship.

 

[Tharmas]

To me, the interesting part is speculation about the overlap. In what way is Historical Jesus the kernel of truth at the center of the legends that became the myth. But it doesn't really matter.

I think what's interesting about it and relevant to today's world is the study of how myth develops in a historical context. National foundation myths rule our politics. Philosophers of science find that many aspects of the so-called scientific method are mythic. The question of why the scientific method works so well is still up for grabs. I could go on. None of us are free from mythic thinking. IMHO.

 

[dbz]

In what way is Historical Jesus the kernel of truth at the center of the legends that became the myth.

A few weeks ago I came across Eco's essay The Myth of Superman. In it he details how the structures of myth and the novel reveal a social division between history as a past (myth) and history as a present (novel). The myth is relegated to the past as an idea is something that is no longer accessible to us: existing instead as prime real estate of unconscious desires. The novel, on the other hand, is something that is immediate to our needs and wishes, in present and future. Hercules as a statue or an image detailing his feats is a novel representation (something that is happening in the present) of a mythical event that in the past is still taking place unconsciously. There Hercules is still triumphing over the Nemean lion.

---

-- https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=177762#p177762

---

Eco's distinction between myth and novel provides a valuable framework for understanding the nature of religious beliefs, particularly in the context of Christ mythicism.

Key points from Eco's essay:

• Myth as Past: Myths are often seen as relics of the past, existing primarily in the realm of the unconscious.
• Novel as Present: Novels are more immediate and relevant to contemporary needs and desires.
• Hercules as Example: Hercules, both as a statue and in mythical narratives, represents a novel reinterpretation of a past event.

Christ Mythicism and the Nature of Myth:

• Mythicism as a Critique: Christ mythicists argue that Christianity is a myth, focusing on its historical inaccuracies.
• Myth as a Social Tool: The author suggests that myths serve as social tools, connecting individuals to the past and fulfilling unconscious desires.
• Jesus as a Novel Figure: The author argues that Jesus, even if not historically accurate, is a novel figure who exists in parallel with his believers.

The Limitations of Christ Mythicism:

• Jesus's Historical Context: The author emphasizes that Jesus's proximity to early Christians undermines the mythicist argument.
• Paul's Theology: Paul's theology of Christ as a contemporary being further challenges the mythicist perspective.
• The Role of the Novel: The author proposes that the novel argument is a more accurate and honest approach than mythicism.

Implications for Christianity and Schisms:

• Present-Focused Belief: The author suggests that Christianity's emphasis on a present-focused belief in Jesus may contribute to its susceptibility to schisms.
• Comparison to Marxism: The author compares Christianity to Marxism, noting that both have undergone revisions and adaptations to account for changing historical contexts.

Conclusion:
Eco's essay provides a valuable lens for analyzing Christ mythicism and understanding the nature of religious beliefs. By highlighting the distinction between myth and novel, the author offers a compelling critique of the mythicist approach and suggests that a novel-based understanding of Jesus may be more accurate and relevant.

 

[1Heidegger1!]

I've been thinking how to respond to Carrier's mythicist argument regarding Mark's use of Paul. Specifically, I'm considering Carrier's point Mark got his Lord's Supper idea from Paul and Paul said he learned it from a mystical experience of Jesus. In other words, the only one present at the Lord's Supper was Jesus - whether he was a human being or a celestial great angel. I did a post exploring these questions. I share a quote from Walsh, then cite the relevant Carrier section, then give my own thoughts. Check out the Blog Post HERE!

 

[TomC]

For me the HJ is an author, maybe the author of GMark, most likely someone earlier.

That's an interesting conjecture.

What reasons have you for believing that Historical Jesus was an author?
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For me the HJ is an author, maybe the author of GMark, most likely someone earlier.

That's an interesting conjecture.

What reasons have you for believing that Historical Jesus was an author?
Tom

I'm simply saying that HJ is the fictional product of authorship. Authors certainly write from experience but they also possess literary and poetic license so are not bound by fact or actual history. Thus our canonical gospel protagonist author(s), without whom there is no HJ at all.

 

[steve_bank]

For me the HJ is an author, maybe the author of GMark, most likely someone earlier.

That's an interesting conjecture.

What reasons have you for believing that Historical Jesus was an author?
Tom

I'm simply saying that HJ is the fictional product of authorship. Authors certainly write from experience but they also possess literary and poetic license so are not bound by fact or actual history. Thus our canonical gospel protagonist author(s), without whom there is no HJ at all.

After years of debate on the form to me that iesis the only view that makes sense to me.

I cam,e to see the gospel Jesus as more of a composite character. There is no singular HJ.

 

[dbz]

I'm considering Carrier's point Mark got his Lord's Supper idea from Paul and Paul said he learned it from a mystical experience of Jesus.

CCed to "Did Paul's philosophical principles inform the gospel writers - Biblical Criticism & History Forum". earlywritings.com.

This lecture will address Paul’s use and understanding of ancient philosophy, with a focus on his references to Platonism and Stoic cosmology. Special attention will be paid to the promises he makes

• to his addressees about the afterlife,
• the practices he advocates (e.g., baptism),
• and some of the common (mis)readings of his ethical and theological views.

Other topics we will cover include

• the meaning and purpose of “spirit” (pneuma) in Paul’s letters,
• whether Paul’s philosophical principles informed the gospel writers,
• and what Paul means by “the heavens.”

---

--"New Insights into the New Testament 2024: A Bible Conference for Non-Scholars". Bart D. Ehrman - New Testament Scholar, Speaker, and Consultant.

---

---

--"Paul's Greatest Idea and Why the Church Rejected It!". YouTube. James Tabor. 25 September 2024.

---

I try to make the more difficult argument above that Mark intentionally incorporated conflicting paths to salvation, whereas Ehrman makes the simpler argument that Mark was just collecting different traditions about Jesus – but the argument works either way against the Christ Myth theory.

Lets consider the viability of mythicism as an interpretive lens for understanding the Lord’s Supper given that Mark is lifting the Lord’s Supper from Paul. In general, concerning Mark’s use of Paul, Walsh notes:

Yet, among his collected texts, our author has some material expressing an interest in Jesus, including copies of the letters of another elite cultural producer who is a Pharisee and a divination specialist by the name of Paul. There he finds talk of Jesus as Christ, possessing divine pneuma (Rom. 8:9; Mark 1:10); a divine lineage of Abraham (Rom. 3, 4, 9; Mark 1); “pneumatic” demonstrations (1 Cor. 2:4–5; Mark 2:8, 5:1ff., 5:41ff.), including divination; demonstrations of power over demons, archons, and unclean pneuma (Rom. 8:38–39; 1 Cor. 15:24; Mark 1:23, 39, 5:2ff., 7:25); Jesus as a prophet for a new age (Rom. 3:21–22; Mark 1:1–15) or a New Adam (1 Cor. 15:45; Mark 1:12ff.); a failure to recognize Jesus as the messiah during his lifetime (1 Cor. 2:6–8; Mark 4:41, 6:2, 8:29, 11:27ff.); and an active principle of God’s pneuma bounding people “in Christ” through baptism (Rom. 6; Mark 1). He even finds talk of fellowship meals and a meal hosted by Jesus anticipating his death (the so-called Last Supper) with dialogue (1 Cor. 11:23–25; Mark 14:22–25) and mention of other characters like James and Peter (e.g., Gal. 2; Mark 3:20–21, 31– 35, 8:31–33, 14:26, 66). The proper interpretation of Judean law and allegory also looms large in these letters (e.g., Gal. 1:6–11; Rom. 1:16–17; 1 Cor. 9:16; Mark 1:1, 2:18ff.), as one might expect from a Pharisee. Perhaps our writer also finds through exchanges within his literary network other Jesus material or a collection of related teachings in the style of Pythagoras’ Golden Verses. (Walsh, Robyn Faith. The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture (p. 132). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.)

---

--MacDonald, John (October 21, 2024). "(Part 3/4, AFTERWORD) Christianity, A Question of Reasoning: The Christ Myth Theory and the Lord's Supper". The Secular Frontier.

 

[dbz]

Mark having Jesus say—literal stories that are false—[that] are told to keep the secret allegorical truth hidden that will only be told to initiates. Just as Plutarch says the Osirians did with the biographies of Osiris. [...] Then, for the first time ever, John comes along and outright says it’s not allegory, it’s literally true, and you’d better believe it because it’s literally true.

---

--December 28, 2019 at 1:55 pm

Mark 4 is a cipher that explains they are representing their story as history to disguise the truth from outsiders.

Just as other religions did (e.g. Osiris cult). What John does differently is stop doing that: he denies he is doing that and insists what he says is literally true and is to be taken as literally true even by believers. And he is the first author ever to say that.

Thus it goes:

1. Mark writes an extended parable to disguise the teaching.
2. Matthew makes it look like scripture to disguise the teaching.
3. Luke is then the first to make it look like a history to disguise the teaching.
4. John is the first to insist he isn’t disguising anything but writing what even insiders had better regard as literally true.

---

--Comment by Richard Carrier on December 28, 2019 at 2:03 pm per "Tim O'Neill & the Biblical History Skeptics on Mythicism". Richard Carrier Blogs. 22 December 2019.

---

Mark was a Pauline. We thus know he believed in the preexistence and divinity of Jesus.

---

--Comment by Richard Carrier on January 5, 2020 at 2:09 pm per "Tim O'Neill & the Biblical History Skeptics on Mythicism". Richard Carrier Blogs. 22 December 2019.

---

Mark 4:10-13 relates Mark’s model for the whole Gospel as disguising deeper truths allegorically within seemingly literal stories (“parables”); and in doing so declares that the uninitiated will not be allowed to see or hear the real meaning, just as Paul says (in e.g. Romans 11:7-10, 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, etc.).
[...]
I just noted Mark had reified earlier in Jesus’s explanation of secret teachings (Mark 4:10-13), which really is a key to Mark’s entire Gospel, including the scene in Mark 8, which isn’t really about Jesus having historically created food, but is an allegory for the Gospel itself.
[...]
Robyn Faith Walsh’s Origins of Early Christian Literature. Now I can quote it:

[In Paul’s letters Mark] finds talk of Jesus as Christ, possessing divine pneuma (Rom. 8:9; Mark 1:10); a divine lineage of Abraham (Rom. 3, 4, 9; Mark 1); “pneumatic” demonstrations (1 Cor. 2:4-5; Mark 2:8, 5:1ff., 5:41ff.), including divination; demonstrations of power over demons, archons, and unclean pneuma (Rom. 8:38-39; 1 Cor. 15:24; Mark 1:23, 39, 5:2ff., 7:25): Jesus as a prophet for a new age (Rom. 3:21-22; Mark 1:1-15) or a New Adam (1 Cor. 15:45; Mark 1:12ff.); a failure to recognize Jesus as the messiah during his lifetime (1 Cor. 2:6-8; Mark 4:41, 6:2, 8:29, 11:27ff.); and an active principle of God’s pneuma bounding people “in Christ” through baptism (Rom. 6; Mark 1). He even finds talk of fellowship meals and a meal hosted by Jesus anticipating his death (the so-called Last Supper) with dialogue (1 Cor. 11:23-25; Mark 14:22-25) and mention of other characters like James and Peter (e.g., Gal. 2; Mark 3:20-21, 31-35, 8:31-33, 14:26, 66). The proper interpretation of Judean law and allegory also looms large in these letters (e.g., Gal. 1:6-11; Rom. 1:16-17, 1 Cor. 9:16; Mark 1:1, 2:18ff. [and one might add Mark 4:10-13–ed.]), as one might expect from a Pharisee.

Walsh, Origins, p. 132

So what Paul says the Christians were doing in general, Mark has Jesus do in particular, as a model. As I explained in both On the Historicity of Jesus and Proving History:

---

--Carrier (25 October 2019). "Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles. Richard Carrier Blogs.

The Gospels clearly allegorize. Especially Mark. They are not saying anything literally. They are also keeping secrets, reserved for the oral instruction of converts (as taught by example in Mark 4:10-13; much of this instruction, backfilling the understanding of converts, may even derive from Paul). So if you want to find Pauline teachings in them, you have to look for the allegories, hiding those secret teachings by signaling them rather than explicitly stating them, just as Jesus himself is made to warn the reader. Paul’s entire soteriology is: merge with Christ through baptism and communion (which shares in his death and resurrection); God will then adopt you as his son (thus making you a brother of Christ); in consequence of which, you will co-inherit with Christ God’s future Kingdom; and thus be raised from the dead; because Jesus paid for all your sins already (thus negating any need for the temple cult). This is taught from the Baptism scene (it is a symbolic death and resurrection culminating in adoption by God: Mark 1:9-14; on its parallels to the crucifixion and resurrection narrative at the end, see my section on it in OHJ) and Communion scene (which is almost verbatim from Paul: Mark 14:22-25). So fictive kinship replaces actual (as taught in Mark 3:31-35), the temple cult is negated and replaced (as taught in Mark’s fig tree/temple sequence, again see discussion in OHJ), because Jesus’s death replaced the atonement of Yom Kippur and the saving-from-death of Passover (the entire Barabbas-Crucifixion narrative: see discussion in OHJ). The fate of the anonymous “young man” (loss of linen “body,” acquisition or transformed “body,” allegorically through his changed body from the Arrest scene to the Empty Tomb scene) then establishes what happens to those saved: the role of garments as body symbolism is even from Paul, as I prove in detail in my chapter on this in The Empty Tomb. So Paul’s entire system is there. It just isn’t presented “literally.” Because that isn’t what the Gospels do. Indeed you’ll notice no Gospel ever explains what “the gospel” is yet says Jesus taught it a lot (so why don’t we hear what it is?); they instead have Jesus talk around it a lot, in metaphors and parables, and Mark even has him outright say that only insiders will ever be told what those things mean—so they won’t be in the written text at all. --Comment by Richard Carrier on March 23, 2023 at 12:23 pm

 

[1Heidegger1!]

I just wanted to say It's amazing how many posts there've been since I started this Christ Myth thread nearly 2 1/2 years ago. This was definitely one of my favorite topics to post about on CFI, Project Reason, and and Religion Prof back in the day. So cool the conversation is still a hot topic!

 

[Gospel]

It seems reasonable to argue that, much like Christians today, the "disciples" might have interpreted scriptures and theological concepts in diverse ways, contributing to the expansion and elaboration of those ideas over time. This interpretive process, which often involves adding details and layers of meaning, could explain how certain narratives evolved. For example, Paul's mystical vision of the Lord’s Supper may have been transformed into a more detailed historical event in Mark's Gospel. This pattern of interpretation and embellishment would be consistent with how religious communities often engage with and build upon foundational beliefs and stories.