The Christ Myth Theory

[Copernicus]

Look, this is getting very silly. The case for a claim that Julius Caesar did not exist would run into a host of problems, not the least of which would be the question of how Gaul got added to the Roman Empire. It's not really about textual references. That case for a claim that Jesus did not exist is a helluva lot easier. That really is about just textual references. You are truly creating a false analogy and making straw man by trying to discredit mythicism with it. I'm not saying that you can't make some kind of analogy along those lines to question the mythicist position. I'm saying that you should use an analogy that is less simplistic and more appropriate.

Oh, it started silly, and still is. My point is that the textual evidence is more or less equivalent for these two individuals. That is, for the emperor of the known world, and for an obscure Palestinian miracle worker.

Not...

for the third time, since you seem to be having inexplicable trouble understanding this point....

that I think Julius Caesar didn't exist.

Julius Caesar existed.

You keep saying this, but I have never claimed you thought Julius Caesar didn't exist. I don't know how I could make it any clearer, but I'll try again. My point is that you are making a false equivalence between Caesar and Jesus by trying to make it seem like the textual evidence for both is roughly the same. It is not, and the problem is that the ONLY evidence for Jesus is textual. Others have also tried to make the same point, but you seem intent on defending your equivalence no matter how many times it is addressed and refuted.

He just didn't actually leave a long papyrus trail while he was alive. And if one man whose life utterly and permanently changed the face of European history for two millennia didn't leave much of a papyrus trail, we shouldn't be surprised that the same can be said of most individuals in antiquity, Jesus included.

What are you talking about? A lot was written about and by Julius Caesar while he was alive. Have you never even heard of De Bello Gallico? I even read the original in Latin. You do know that Cicero, the greatest Roman orator of his time, had things to say about him, don't you? Again, you seem to be making a false equivalence here between Julius Caesar and Jesus. Are you just going into argumentum ad nauseam mode?

Is Julius Caesar a funny example?

Show me the strong textual evidence that any particular 1st century Judean existed. Find me a single one for whom the textual evidence is stronger than that which is presented for Jesus, or that meets any of the supposed criteria of historicity that have been advanced in this thread. If you do not like my analogy, I happily invite you to find another that is more appropriate.

I'll wait.

There seems to be some kind of communication malfunction here, because you seem to be making truly absurd claims. You need to explain how it is that the posthumous references to Jesus are equivalent to the contemporary records of Caesar, not to mention the existence of works that he authored.

Archaeological evidence is more than just the discovery of a minted coin. There are a lot of different kinds of archaeological relics that corroborate the claim that Julius Caesar existed. There are none pointing to the existence of Jesus. Lack of evidence does not prove that Jesus never existed. Nor does the lack of evidence for a china teapot orbiting the sun prove that there isn't one. However, it is consistent with the claim that there isn't one. The burden of proof is on the historicist position, and it has to be better than "Jesus must have existed because mythicism is equivalent to denying that Julius Caesar existed." It isn't.

Aha, I'm starting to see a trend here. You claimed that there were all kinds of non-Roman texts supporting the existence of Julius Caesar, to the point of asserting with seeming confidence that the lack of such evidence would be "suspicious". When asked to name a single one, you changed the subject, perhaps having since realized that no such documents existed. And the same thing is about to happen to the archaeological evidence. I will ask you to name a single artifact that supports Caesar's existence, but that isn't explicitly tied to his status as a political leader: a status that Jesus never had, nor is claimed to have had, and thus would not be expected to produce. And you will once again, perhaps after a bit of frantic googling, change the subject and introduce a new goalpost to reach, having no doubt realized with some embarassment that it is vanishingly rare to find an artifact associated with certainty to any named individual.

Actually, all I said was others besides Romans wrote about him without having any specifics to back that up. I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "Romans", so I'm not exactly sure what I would need to do to name specific people in a way that would satisfy your demand. Obviously, most of the literary references were by people living in the Roman Empire, but not all of them were Roman citizens. And it has been pointed out to you that it is wrong to equate the Roman Empire with a group devoted to a singular religious ideology. So here again you are into equating very different communities of people. You can't seem to get it through your head that you picked the wrong kind of historical person to equate with Jesus. Julius Caesar actually did leave an extensive papyrus trail, but the papyrus trail isn't the only thing that informs us of his existence. It is the only thing that informs us of Jesus' existence, and his trail contains nothing authored by anyone while he was alive.

 

[Politesse]

What are you talking about? A lot was written about and by Julius Caesar while he was alive. Have you never even heard of De Bello Gallico? I even read the original in Latin. You do know that Cicero, the greatest Roman orator of his time, had things to say about him, don't you? Again, you seem to be making a false equivalence here between Julius Caesar and Jesus. Are you just going into argumentum ad nauseam mode?

So you're up to two...

 

[Politesse]

There seems to be some kind of communication malfunction here, because you seem to be making truly absurd claims. You need to explain how it is that the posthumous references to Jesus are equivalent to the contemporary records of Caesar, not to mention the existence of works that he authored

Predictable change of subject. You complain that my analogy is bad, but offer no better analogue.

 

[Politesse]

Actually, perhaps it would be helpful to list five 1st century Judeans you are certain exist, so we could go through the documentary evidence and look for common trends. Maybe get something like average number of contemporary written sources that exist pertaining to any particular individual.

 

[dbz]

...list five 1st century Judeans you are certain exist....

and are in the same "Jesus Reference Class".
• "Jesus and the Problem of the Fraudulent Reference Class". Richard Carrier Blogs. 20 August 2021.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

 

[Politesse]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

 

[ramoss]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

While it was probably idealized , we do have archeological evidence of the Gallic wars. THere are some descrepnecies to be sure, but if you remember the writing was a political piece as much as it an attempt to write history favorably

 

[Jarhyn]

I just find it exceedingly likely that it was a "historical dramatization" of Crestus mashed up with the more recent crazy Jesus Ananus (lol, an anus) some 100 years after the first partially cribbed from Josephus and mutated by memories or observations of... Ananus (lol, an anus).*

The whole timeline fits very well for this, and it explains the commonness of such interest in any specific guys named Jesus.

It's more a story of the history of the stereotype of "crazy Jesus" but written where the stereotype target isn't crazy.

It generates a myth from the portmanteau of two different Jesus figures mixed with liberal amounts of fiction, and a bit of historic research.

*I am totally a mature adult, definitely not 3 8 year olds in a trenchcoat.

 

[Politesse]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

While it was probably idealized , we do have archeological evidence of the Gallic wars. THere are some descrepnecies to be sure, but if you remember the writing was a political piece as much as it an attempt to write history favorably

Yes, it is best explained as a genuine (in the sense of being written by the person it is credited to) artifact of wartime propaganda.

 

[No Robots]

How lovely to see this forum revived. Mythicists have been forced to beg admittance to Peter Kirby’s forum for too long. Nice to see some familiar handles (Hello, Politesse. I see you are still taking your moniker to heart.)

The discussion about Jesus has come a long way from those heady early days of New Atheism, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier. Or is it rather the case that there has been no progress in this discussion for a decade? And why would that be? Could it be that for all the Jesus boffins, whether Christian or atheist, there is general demoralization resulting from all this talk about Jesus being just another Jew?

In any case, I come here to promote my own hobby horses. As some of you recall, I am big on Constantin Brunner, the first to demand recognition of Jesus as Jew, and who wrote an extended critique of the myth theory. Rather than bore you all with more quotations from Brunner, I am going to promote the work of one of his contemporaries, Harry Waton, a Jew and Spinozist who wrote on the historic significance of Jesus.

The fundamental question is this: Why try to understand Jesus at all? After all, if one is Christian, one can simply believe without understanding; and if one is atheist, one can simply disbelieve without understanding. For some of us, however, understanding is something worth pursuing, especially where so many people are willing to forgo understanding in favour of belief or disbelief. And so we seek to understand. There are many attempts at explaining the phenomenon of Jesus. The faithful say he is the road to salvation, and those without faith say that he is a psychologic projection. Neither of these account for the historic impact of this person. Why have billions and billions of people, including many of today’s most militant atheists, devoted so much effort to understanding him? The more thoughtful atheists will say that it is necessary to understand the core of religious belief in order to combat it. And that is fine. But what to make of the ceaseless efforts to deny the obvious and easy answer that we have to do with a man of typical Jewish prophetic zeal, and find instead a basis in all manner of fantastic non-Jewish beliefs? Can it be that atheists, in seeking to combat religion, wish to create a fantasy of their own? And if so, why would that be?

There is in fact a very good reason why the myth theory has attained a prominent place in atheist thought today. It is for the simple reason that accepting the basic premise of the Jesus story as a Jewish sage necessarily involves serious consideration of the precepts of his thinking, and this may very well lead away from the kind of atheism that most atheists find comfortable. In stark terms, coming to terms with Jesus as a Jew means coming to terms with Judaism. And what does coming to terms with Judaism mean? If we say that Judaism is no more than an ancient religion with a few million adherents many of whom are assimilating into the general culture, then we can safely dismiss it. But if we say that Judaism is rapidly globalizing by virtue of its outreach faiths ie. Christianity and Islam, then we have a more serious issue to deal with. Here is Harry Waton:

With Jesus, who only symbolizes the Jews, the Jews say: Our kingdom is not of this world. The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress. Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race. The races and the nations will cheerfully submit to the spiritual power of Judaism, and all will become Jews.

Many people would reject this. But what if it is true? Where does that leave the faith tradition? Where does that leave atheism? There are answers to these questions, but this post is long enough.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am truly enjoying the discussion.

As someone who has enjoyed the freedoms that literary license bestows I've trotted out my rather tired and common-sense hobby horse a few times which still rocks to the tune that GJ is just another fictional character in another series of fictional works. This take on GJ probably proceeds from having done fictional writing in the past and majoring in literature at college.

But we should all wish to know the reasons that jesus is taken as historical and we should all wish to know why Jesus is not historical, rather just another bit of historical fiction. It the scientific and historical curiosity in a person that drives the search for the truth, the accuracy of claims.

So, respectfully, we should want to understand the creation of this character in history. I don't think it's about anti-Jewish paranoia, it certainly isn't for me, it's just basic curiosity.

 

[Jarhyn]

How lovely to see this forum revived. Mythicists have been forced to beg admittance to Peter Kirby’s forum for too long. Nice to see some familiar handles (Hello, Politesse. I see you are still taking your moniker to heart.)

The discussion about Jesus has come a long way from those heady early days of New Atheism, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier. Or is it rather the case that there has been no progress in this discussion for a decade? And why would that be? Could it be that for all the Jesus boffins, whether Christian or atheist, there is general demoralization resulting from all this talk about Jesus being just another Jew?

In any case, I come here to promote my own hobby horses. As some of you recall, I am big on Constantin Brunner, the first to demand recognition of Jesus as Jew, and who wrote an extended critique of the myth theory. Rather than bore you all with more quotations from Brunner, I am going to promote the work of one of his contemporaries, Harry Waton, a Jew and Spinozist who wrote on the historic significance of Jesus.

The fundamental question is this: Why try to understand Jesus at all? After all, if one is Christian, one can simply believe without understanding; and if one is atheist, one can simply disbelieve without understanding. For some of us, however, understanding is something worth pursuing, especially where so many people are willing to forgo understanding in favour of belief or disbelief. And so we seek to understand. There are many attempts at explaining the phenomenon of Jesus. The faithful say he is the road to salvation, and those without faith say that he is a psychologic projection. Neither of these account for the historic impact of this person. Why have billions and billions of people, including many of today’s most militant atheists, devoted so much effort to understanding him? The more thoughtful atheists will say that it is necessary to understand the core of religious belief in order to combat it. And that is fine. But what to make of the ceaseless efforts to deny the obvious and easy answer that we have to do with a man of typical Jewish prophetic zeal, and find instead a basis in all manner of fantastic non-Jewish beliefs? Can it be that atheists, in seeking to combat religion, wish to create a fantasy of their own? And if so, why would that be?

There is in fact a very good reason why the myth theory has attained a prominent place in atheist thought today. It is for the simple reason that accepting the basic premise of the Jesus story as a Jewish sage necessarily involves serious consideration of the precepts of his thinking, and this may very well lead away from the kind of atheism that most atheists find comfortable. In stark terms, coming to terms with Jesus as a Jew means coming to terms with Judaism. And what does coming to terms with Judaism mean? If we say that Judaism is no more than an ancient religion with a few million adherents many of whom are assimilating into the general culture, then we can safely dismiss it. But if we say that Judaism is rapidly globalizing by virtue of its outreach faiths ie. Christianity and Islam, then we have a more serious issue to deal with. Here is Harry Waton:

With Jesus, who only symbolizes the Jews, the Jews say: Our kingdom is not of this world. The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress. Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race. The races and the nations will cheerfully submit to the spiritual power of Judaism, and all will become Jews.

Many people would reject this. But what if it is true? Where does that leave the faith tradition? Where does that leave atheism? There are answers to these questions, but this post is long enough.

Rather, I regard the author of the fiction to be in some ways the sage and perhaps a child of thought of the crazed(?) philosophical ramblings of Jesus Ananus.

I am truly enjoying the discussion.

As someone who has enjoyed the freedoms that literary license bestows I've trotted out my rather tired and common-sense hobby horse a few times which still rocks to the tune that GJ is just another fictional character in another series of fictional works. This take on GJ probably proceeds from having done fictional writing in the past and majoring in literature at college.

But we should all wish to know the reasons that jesus is taken as historical and we should all wish to know why Jesus is not historical, rather just another bit of historical fiction. It the scientific and historical curiosity in a person that drives the search for the truth, the accuracy of claims.

So, respectfully, we should want to understand the creation of this character in history. I don't think it's about anti-Jewish paranoia, it certainly isn't for me, it's just basic curiosity.

Exactly. I enjoy it as much as anyone else, and I really do think it all exists at a Nexus of mixing the two Jesus stories (Ananus + Chrestus) to fictionalize around the stereotype.

I think it's in fact rendering more respect to see it as the piece of creative historical fiction that it is rather than ascribing holy qualities to humans.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds,

So did Rambo and John Wayne's cowboy characters.

In reality Caesar made blunders and the Roman army was never invincible. Caesar's tactics worked well out in the open. In modern terms he developed battlefield command and control.

My point is Paul was a Roman citizen. He would certainly invent and exaggerate to establish his position.

To Jews the gospels would have been blasphemy. The idea of a human Jew being related to god. The Romans on the other hand elevated emperors to god like status as a matter of course.

Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese empowers.

I'd say the embellished gospels could not have orginated in Jewish culture. If you want to bring authority to a narrative, bring in a god-man. Routine in the ancient world.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds,

So did Rambo and John Wayne's cowboy characters.

In reality Caesar made blunders and the Roman army was never invincible. Caesar's tactics worked well out in the open. In modern terms he developed battlefield command and control.

My point is Paul was a Roman citizen. He would certainly invent and exaggerate to establish his position.

To Jews the gospels would have been blasphemy. The idea of a human Jew being related to god. The Romans on the other hand elevated emperors to god like status as a matter of course.

Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese empowers.

I'd say the embellished gospels could not have orginated in Jewish culture. If you want to bring authority to a narrative, bring in a god-man. Routine in the ancient world.

You speak as if the Jews of the day were not also largely, if not mostly, influenced by Roman culture. Of course they could have originated in Jewish culture, and moreso on the borders of the two.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Jesus mythicism merely means believing that some elements of the Gospel narratives are mythical in nature, than very nearly all scholars, of any discipline, are Jesus mythicists.

Do you understand the difference between mythical and fictional?

 

[Politesse]

If Jesus mythicism merely means believing that some elements of the Gospel narratives are mythical in nature, than very nearly all scholars, of any discipline, are Jesus mythicists.

Do you understand the difference between mythical and fictional?

Yes. Hence why I have stated so confidently that nearly all scholars would agree that Jesus is, very obviously, a mythical figure. It is not a controversial claim in the same way as claiming, as per Carrier and the other conspiracy wonks, that Jesus was a wholly invented person concocted for some nefarious purpose.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Jesus mythicism merely means believing that some elements of the Gospel narratives are mythical in nature, than very nearly all scholars, of any discipline, are Jesus mythicists.

Do you understand the difference between mythical and fictional?

Yes. Hence why I have stated so confidently that nearly all scholars would agree that Jesus is, very obviously, a mythical figure. It is not a controversial claim in the same way as claiming, as per Carrier and the other conspiracy wonks, that Jesus was a wholly invented person concocted for some nefarious purpose.

Isn't doesn't have to be nefarious in the sense that the effects are preplanned.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, we had to read Caesar's The Gallic Wars in Latin in high school. Catholic school. It certainly was intened to enhance Caesar's political image. I don't recall his having walked on water.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds, culminating in a venture to a faraway island swathed in myth and mystery.

No, just single-handedly led his people to victory over the forces of darkness, against overwhelming odds,

So did Rambo and John Wayne's cowboy characters.

In reality Caesar made blunders and the Roman army was never invincible. Caesar's tactics worked well out in the open. In modern terms he developed battlefield command and control.

My point is Paul was a Roman citizen. He would certainly invent and exaggerate to establish his position.

To Jews the gospels would have been blasphemy. The idea of a human Jew being related to god. The Romans on the other hand elevated emperors to god like status as a matter of course.

Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese empowers.

I'd say the embellished gospels could not have orginated in Jewish culture. If you want to bring authority to a narrative, bring in a god-man. Routine in the ancient world.

You speak as if the Jews of the day were not also largely, if not mostly, influenced by Roman culture. Of course they could have originated in Jewish culture, and moreso on the borders of the two.

Tht would be lke saying modern Israell is cultrally influnced by Iran and Iran is culturally infkluenced by Saudi Arabia.

 

[steve_bank]

Fiction can be based on real people. Captain Kirk is fiction, no such a charter exists. A fictional 19th century resewn novel woud gave characters based on composites and sterotypes of reral cowboys.

Historical drama is based on historical characters with liberal literary licrnse with fActs for dramatic effect. A number of moviess based on Billy The Kid and Wyatt Earp.

Myth can be fiction or based on a real person and real facts.

If not an actual Jesus on which the myth was built there were similar people.