FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: davedan on January 25, 2016, 03:21:25 am
-
The idea of Jesus Mythicism has been around since the 18th - 19th Century. However it is falling out of favour today given the view for instance, absence of proof is not proof of absence. What about other figures, such as Moses, was he a mythic figure (an archetypal lawgiver) or was there a historical person behind it.
What about other figures, Zoraster, Dionyses, Oddyseuss, Heracles, Theseus, Romulus & Remus etc.
Which do you think is based in History and which is purely myth and why?
-
Of the given examples, I'm fairly sure only Zoroaster was real.
But it's a difficult question who counts as a "historical person" behind the myth, and by sufficiently lax standards you can probably come up with more. Christianity was started by someone, who was definitely not the son of God or a miracle worker, but maybe did give a sermon on a mount or was a carpenter, who knows.
I think the general view is that there was an actual war between the Greeks and Troy, and of course the Iliad is a massive exaggeration but maybe there was some clever general to base the Odysseus myth off of, or mybe a combination of them.
Rome started at some point, someone had something to do with it, probably wasn't twin brothers suckled by a wolf.
And so on and so forth.
-
I think all myths have a little bit of reality in them. They might not be based on a single historical personage, but Heracles, for example, could be based on stories of hunters and/or soldiers of exceptional skill and strength. If nothing else, they represent us trying to connect ourselves to the world around us; giving gods and legends incredible powers, but projecting our own flaws on to them to make them relatable, from pettiness to jealousy to genocidal ambition (lookin at you, Yahweh).
-
Well someone started Christianity but it wasn't necessarily a 'jesus' figure. For instance the human mind could behind the creation could have been Paul (or Eusebius). Or for a more recent example (although not a very good one -I'm sure there is better) L Ron Hubbard existed and was historical but Xeno isn't.
-
Well someone started Christianity but it wasn't necessarily a 'jesus' figure. For instance the human mind could behind the creation could have been Paul (or Eusebius). Or for a more recent example (although not a very good one -I'm sure there is better) L Ron Hubbard existed and was historical but Xeno isn't.
Aye, that's true. In that case, they either represent some kind of frightening elemental force (lightning, volcanoes, etc) or something that is advantageous to the creator, which is more likely the case with Jesus. He was a way for the founders of Christianity to frame Yahweh as something less than the genocidal maniac he was and to make him more relatable to the masses. After all, in those times, every adult man worth his salt had or at least wanted a son. Jesus filled that role, brought a tiny sliver of humanity to his father, and made him just acceptable enough for his particular doctrine to spread like wildfire.
-
I think all myths have a little bit of reality in them. They might not be based on a single historical personage, but Heracles, for example, could be based on stories of hunters and/or soldiers of exceptional skill and strength. If nothing else, they represent us trying to connect ourselves to the world around us; giving gods and legends incredible powers, but projecting our own flaws on to them to make them relatable, from pettiness to jealousy to genocidal ambition (lookin at you, Yahweh).
Heracles is an interesting one. For instance Robert Graves considers that Heracles starts as a sacrificial king. That is the name given to the king who is sacrificed every year to ensure good crops. Eventually the King would substitute a Tainist to take his place in the sacrifice. Later still the king isn't killed but simply hides in a cave for a few days before re-appearing as the reborn king. Later on the myth is shrouded onto the figure of Heracles until his apotheosis.
Although Robert Graves seems to be rather enamoured by the idea of the sacrificial kings. For instance he lots Odysseus amongst the redeemed sacrificial kings and cites his scarred thigh as evidence of this. (On possibly a complete tangent - Odysseus is considered to be a landmark in literature because he is recorded as having a personal imperfect, his legs are too short for his body).
-
Hrm, certainly sounds plausible, at least.
-
Well someone started Christianity but it wasn't necessarily a 'jesus' figure. For instance the human mind could behind the creation could have been Paul (or Eusebius). Or for a more recent example (although not a very good one -I'm sure there is better) L Ron Hubbard existed and was historical but Xeno isn't.
Yes, true. The Jesus character could be completely made up. The point I was going for is that there's not a sharp cutoff between "real" and "mythical", and two people with differing standards of what counts as a historical Jesus can disagree on mythicism even if the facts are settled.
-
I understand that there isn't a sharp cut off between historical and mythical. That different people have different standards as to what amounts to a historical figure. This is particularly so for people who have some sort of message. However I think there is a distinction to be made between for instance Plato's dialogues of Socrates and the Gospel. The merit of what is attributed to Socrates does not depend on there being a true historical person. The ideas are judged solely on their own merit and really it doesn't matter whether Plato imagined the dialogue with Socrates or whether it actually happened. The distinction with the Gospels is that the identity of Jesus is crucial as to whether they are accepted. You do not merely take them on face value but they have authority because the person saying them is the "son of God". If the authority behind Jesus is removed then the ideas stand and fall on their own merit. For instance, the Golden Rule, that's still important although it is derivative of what Rabbi Hillel said 100 years earlier.
It is in fact the authority of the attribution to Jesus which means we don't talk about Rabbi Hillel's Golden Rule rather than Jesus's golden rule. All Jesus did was endorse and promulgate what had previously been said by Hillel.
-
Agreed.
-
The forge of mythology is probably the campfire, and people would likely talk about who and what they know at first. In the centuries-long game of telephone where the yarn travels from campfire to campfire more and more fantastical elements creep in to the point where the subject of the yarn becomes unrecognizable and the yarn becomes a myth.
That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it.
-
Although sometimes a mythical figure can spring fully formed, for instance the mythical figure of Ned Lud.
-
King Ludd is a fine counterexample, there maybe coulda been some truth to the tale of the enraged Ned who smashed the stocking frames in a fit of rage but nobody actually knows. Point taken.
-
I like the example because it shows how easy it is for myth to spring up even amongst societies far more advanced than bronze age nomads.
-
Deliberately cross-posted:
Related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
-
That's an interesting way to look at the propagation of ideas. Certainly since the invention of the printing press the internet has been the most powerful force in the propagation and alteration of ideas. It is one of the things that makes it hard for us to imagine the importance of accurate transcription and the ability for a transcription error to become the accepted version.
I take it you posted this Pyro as a modern take on Tol's campfire stories?
One of the interesting things about mythical figures is the interchangeability across cultures. One theory is this is because most of the main mythological figures are representations or allegories of the Sun.
-
The Rainbow Serpent is common to lots of indigenous Australian nations, but it's not just associated with the sky but also with water holes-dashed important if you live in a desert. Ranginui and Papatuanuku, the primordial gods of the Maori live in darkness with their children. Coyote, the primordial deity of the Miwok native Americans is distinctly Earth dwelling.
I think the sun is incredibly important but myths tend to be centred around what people know, sun-but also water and earth as well as sex and childbirth in various manifestations.
My point is that the sun is incredibly important in mythology, but I doubt it's the single origin for most myths. Just one of many that are based around things that were/are important to people.
-
I agree, I wasn't suggesting that they all were but most of the interchangeable ones were sun gods. The other thing of note is your examples are all New Worlds myths which haven't had the cross pollination of the Indo-European Myth.
The reason I referred to the sun god (as opposed to some of the other interchangeable gods, such as the ocean) was because it has been really prolific. Apart from the ones we are familiar with like Sol, Helios, Apollo, Osiris there are so many more with are considered to be son gods, such as Adonis, Mithras, Dionysus, Bachus, some of the really interesting ideas are that even Heracles, Moses and Jesus are solar/zodiac allegories
-
I take it you posted this Pyro as a modern take on Tol's campfire stories?
Pretty much, yeah.
The reason I referred to the sun god (as opposed to some of the other interchangeable gods, such as the ocean) was because it has been really prolific. Apart from the ones we are familiar with like Sol, Helios, Apollo, Osiris there are so many more with are considered to be son gods, such as Adonis, Mithras, Dionysus, Bachus, some of the really interesting ideas are that even Heracles, Moses and Jesus are solar/zodiac allegories
You know that the traditional Christian halo was stolen from depictions of Helios?
-
Constantine also like the halo in his depictions taking it from Helios/Apollo.
Richard Carrier is probably one of the most academically respected Christ Mythicists. He does a good speech here on the gospels as mythology. Which funnily enought is a less controversial position than Christ himself being a mythic figure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0AXu6QdE7k
-
Wasn't Richard Carrier that idiot who hitched himself to the AtheismPlus wagon until they did the usual thing and anonymously accused him of rape?
I'd rather take up petard hoisting as a hobby, personally...
-
I never heard about that, and can't see how it would matter to a discussion of mythology. I mean even if he raped a sack of baby beagles it wouldn't make any difference to his argument?
In any event, you don't have enough powder for a petard and I seriously doubt you have the co-ordination or athletic ability to throw one far enough to avoid being hoist yourself. You certainly aren't capable of dropping any thought bombs.
-
Wasn't Richard Carrier that idiot who hitched himself to the AtheismPlus wagon until they did the usual thing and anonymously accused him of rape?
I'd rather take up petard hoisting as a hobby, personally...
I can't find any accusations of rape directed at him. There were other sex scandals relating to him, though, like when he confessed to cheating on his wife.
-
Our resident Contarian was sourcing his comments from the space between his blue-blooded Tory buttocks? Shocking!
-
Necroing my thread with an onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/article/god-admits-stealing-idea-messiah-zoroastrianism-53009 (http://www.theonion.com/article/god-admits-stealing-idea-messiah-zoroastrianism-53009)
-
Necroing my thread with an onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/article/god-admits-stealing-idea-messiah-zoroastrianism-53009 (http://www.theonion.com/article/god-admits-stealing-idea-messiah-zoroastrianism-53009)
You know, I read that it's possible Christianity influenced Zoroastrianism, rather than the other way around. After all, the great Zoroastrian holy book, the Avesta, didn't exist until the time of the Sasanian Empire (which came into being in 224 CE). It's kind of a chicken/egg scenario.
-
Is that the same way Mithracism was influenced by Christianity by existing before it? I mean that's what Justin Martyr claimed.
-
Is that the same way Mithracism was influenced by Christianity by existing before it? I mean that's what Justin Martyr claimed.
Religions do evolve over time, especially in the oral transmission stage.
-
You've kind of missed my point. Perhaps a better one would have been did the story of Noah influence the epic of Gilgamesh?
But I fully accept that Religions evolve over time. Also that the evolution is much quicker during oral transmission and before a 'authorised' version of the written version.
-
But I fully accept that Religions evolve over time. Also that the evolution is much quicker during oral transmission and before a 'authorised' version of the written version.
I don't know about that. My countrymen regularly make my head hurt, but to see what they've done to the basic tenants of Christianity in slightly under 250 years is pretty damn impressive. We went from love your event abs do good to those who hurt you to get them damn foreigners outta here and taxes are of the devil. We've completely turned what the main character of the new testament said completely on its ear. From peace to guns in under 250 years.
-
That may well be because of American Christianity's obsession with the old testament.
-
But I fully accept that Religions evolve over time. Also that the evolution is much quicker during oral transmission and before a 'authorised' version of the written version.
I don't know about that. My countrymen regularly make my head hurt, but to see what they've done to the basic tenants of Christianity in slightly under 250 years is pretty damn impressive. We went from love your event abs do good to those who hurt you to get them damn foreigners outta here and taxes are of the devil. We've completely turned what the main character of the new testament said completely on its ear. From peace to guns in under 250 years.
That's been Christianity in a nutshell ever since it gained any amount of power. American Christianity is just business as usual.
-
As far the Jesus Mythism goes it always felt like a stretch to me. Yeah it's possible that Jesus didn't exist and there are some similarities to his story with older traditions, but it seems more plausible that such traditions got attached to the story of a real person then for him to be a completely made up character. Most Sumarian historians seem to believe that there really was a historical Gilgamesh, and most of the Historians who study the early days of Christianity seem to feel the same way about Jesus.
One book I've got (The Evolution of God by Robert Wright) makes the argument that the basics of the Crucifixion story have to be true because they just don't make any sense. Sure there are similarities with other religions, but it's not stuff that JEWS believed about the Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to restore them politically on Earth Moses style, not get killed. And when you look at it that way the Crucifixion story sounds like someone trying to explain why the guy they thought was the messiah just got killed. You see, he didn't really get killed, he came back to life and flew away, but he'll come back and then do all the Messiah stuff. As the religion grew they started absorbing pagan and Zoroastrian ideas that were similar until you get Christianity as we know it today.
-
Do you think there was really a Heracles, Ned Ludd or John Frumm?
-
Don't know enough of the details, but I'll assume no in Hercules case at least.
But does that matter? X legendary figure probably didn't exist isn't evidence that Jesus didn't. We are pretty sure Gilgamesh was real, although he probably didn't fight monsters or go on a quest for immortality. Troy turned out to be a real city, even if Homer's poems are highly exaggerated. The "Jesus didn't exist" crowd just seems to attach unwarranted certainty to the idea, he might not have existed, so he definitely didn't. Most historians seem to think it's a lot more likely then not that the very basics of the story are about a real guy, although lots of details are probably exaggerated or outright made up.
To give an example the Anti-Stratfordists are found of pointing out that the existence of William Shakespeare is supported by only a small handful of documents, which don't directly support him being the guy who wrote the plays his name is on. This to them proves it was really Marlowe or Queen Elizabeth or whoever. Jesus never existed always seemed to be in a similar catigory to me.
-
No but it works the other way as well, merely because one legendary figure was based on an actual person doesn't mean other legendary figures had an historical person as a base.
You pointed to the fact that scholar's believe legendary figure x (In your example Gilgamesh) was probably a historical figure upon which the legend was grafted which means that Legendary figure y (Jesus) was also an historical figure upon which legend was grafted. My point is that simply because Gilgamesh was a person doesn't mean other legends are.
Nor do I think that you can look at the Jesus Myth from a purely Jewish perspective. Christianity is a syncretism between greek/roman thought and jewish ideas. If most parts of the gospel story are adaptions of myths why does there need to be a historical person? The Pauline Epistles don't appear to require an historical person. They tell us extraordinarily little about any ministry of jesus.
Nor do I think it is fair to lump this idea in with Shakespearean Mythicists. We have Shakespeare's will and we know the plays were performed in his lifetime and attributed to him. The idea that they were written by another who didn't want to take credit is more in line with the people who think Harper Lee did not write 'To Kill a Mockingbird' than questioning the existence of an historical Jesus.
Indeed it is only the fact that Christianity is such a ubiquitous construct in our society that makes for the presumption that there was a Jesus. There is no presumption of the existence of other demigods such as Dionysus, Heracles, Osiris, Ramm, Rabon, Krishna, or Cuchulain.
While not religious mythicism the general consensus appears to be that all the kings of Rome were mythic. Not just Romulus, but Numa, Tarquinus Priscus, Tarqiunus Superbus etc.
Troy is an interesting example. It is unsurprising that there was a city controlling entry into the Black Sea. The archeology suggests that there were several cities on the site. Does that mean that one of them was the City of Homer's Illiad? Myths are often set in real places, the existence of London proves the existnence of harry potter to the same extent as Troy proves Priam. Its existence does not even prove that it was attacked by a panhellenic alliance
-
Is that the same way Mithracism was influenced by Christianity by existing before it? I mean that's what Justin Martyr claimed.
Religions do evolve over time, especially in the oral transmission stage.
Makes religion a sexually transmitted disease eh?
-
No but it works the other way as well, merely because one legendary figure was based on an actual person doesn't mean other legendary figures had an historical person as a base.
You pointed to the fact that scholar's believe legendary figure x (In your example Gilgamesh) was probably a historical figure upon which the legend was grafted which means that Legendary figure y (Jesus) was also an historical figure upon which legend was grafted. My point is that simply because Gilgamesh was a person doesn't mean other legends are.
Yes I agree, but that is my point. Legendary characters and demi-gods can be purely fictional and exaggerated accounts of real people just as easily. Saying that Romulus probably didn't exist does not effect whether or not Jesus did one way or the other. "It's possible that Jesus might not have existed" and "I have evidence that he didn't exist" are different things, and the supporters of Jesus Mythicism have a tendency to confuse them.
For example there is a similar theory that Socrates never existed, that he was a fictional creation of Plato and Aristotle, since there is little evidence for his existence outside of them writing about him. But the fact that it is possible they invented Socrates is not evidence that they did invent him.
I agree that Jesus Mythicism is not bullshit on the same order as Anti-Stratfordists. But there seem to be enough similarities to raise red flags. Both are based on holes in the historical record, but these holes are not as suprising as they act. Only a handful of documents support the existence of Shakespeare and there is a lengthy gap in his life where we have no idea where he lived or what he was doing. And Shakespeare lived only 400 years ago. Thus the anti-statfordians say he must not have been able to write those plays, because it is possible that someone else did. But these holes in our knowledge of Shakespeare are not unusual, out knowledge of most of his contemporaries is just as spotty. The same is true for Jesus, there are plenty of other people from the same era generally assumed to be real for whom our direct evidence is no or little better. It is not that shocking that a cult leader in a Roman backwater could have existed without much direct evidence surviving to the present.
In both cases actual historians overwhelmingly reject the theory, but it gains popularity among non-historians who have ideological beliefs the theory props up (Classist views for 19th century anti-stratfords, atheism/anti-theism for jesus mythists) who then explain away their lack of success with historians by calling them biased. When an idea is popular with followers of a particular ideology but not with experts in the field, that's generally a warning sign.
Nor do I think that you can look at the Jesus Myth from a purely Jewish perspective. Christianity is a syncretism between greek/roman thought and jewish ideas. If most parts of the gospel story are adaptions of myths why does there need to be a historical person? The Pauline Epistles don't appear to require an historical person. They tell us extraordinarily little about any ministry of jesus.
And here I'm really going to have to disagree with you. Christianity evolved into a syncretism of jewish and pagan beliefs, but it did not start as one. It originated as a jewish movement that later on started including pagan converts (which appears to have been a very controversial choice.) Explaining Christianity's origins thus needs to be seen in the light of early first century Judaism. And here there are numerous aspects of his life that make no sense as a character invented by first century Jews. I already mentioned the crucifixion but there are others. For example, if Jesus was a fictional character, why was he from Nazareth? The Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem, so if you are a first century Jew making up a fictional story about a fictional messiah, you would logically have the story start there. But Jesus was from Nazareth. The oldest Gospel, mark gives no explanation for this and later Gospels give implausible and contradictory explanations of how he total was from Bethlehem, he just had to go to Nazareth to get away from Herod or for a census or something. This and several other aspects of his story are much more plausible if Jesus was a real person who's followers are trying to explain how this guy who obviously wasn't the messiah really was then for a fictional story of a messiah.
Combine that with the fact that there are some nearly contemporary writings of Jesus by non-christians such as Tacitus that seem to take for granted that he was a real person. (If Jesus did not exist why didn't Jewish and Roman opponents of the movement make that argument?) is in my view grounds to say that the existence of a historical Jesus is more likely then not.
-
You brought up Gilgamesh existing in relation to the idea of the Jesus Myth. I pointed out some legendary figures and you respond by saying they aren't related, that the existence or mythicism of one is unconnected to the other. I agree. It has no tendency to prove it either way.
Socrates was mentioned earlier in the thread. The interesting thing about Socrates is that the quality of his ideas are completely independent of his existence. The same cannot be said for a religious figure.
I don't think it's correct to say that Christianity started as a purely jewish movement. None of the original gospels were written in Aramaic, nor were the Epistles. Paul himself was asserted to be a Roman Citizen. The gospel of Mark was written in greek and believed to have been written in Rome. I don't see how it can be suggested that it was a purely jewish movement. Moreover while modern historians generally accept the historicity of Jesus they don't accept the gospel of Mark (from its wikipedia page):
The modern consensus is that Mark's purpose was to present a theological message rather than to write history.[14]
So what can we know of a historical figure from a writing that is itself myth? Whose purpose was not history but religious instruction.
Even were it written in Jerusalem it is wrong to suggest that would be a purely Jewish movement without Greek and Roman influence. At the time of its writing it was a province of Rome.
I have heard the argument about the inconsistency of the character as being a basis for there being an historical Jesus. Christopher Hitchens does quite a good bit on it. For my part I am not convinced that the inconsistencies in the story are great evidence of historicity.
I take issue with the suggestion that there were near contemporary writings about Christ which accepted his existence. The passage in Tacitus, is neither contemporary (it is 100 years later - John Frumm and Ned Ludd were both believed to be historical in a much shorter timeframe than 100 years and both after the existence of the printing press) and does little to prove his existence. There is no indication in the passage that Tacitus was doing any more than echoing what Christians in Rome were saying. He certainly does not appear to refer to any imperial record of his existence or execution (I don't subscribe to the theory that we should have a roman record of his execution). The most important thing about the passage in Tacitus is that it shows that by that time there was a Roman community of Christians.
I also think it is wrong to think that people of the time would have been concerned if Jesus was real or not such that a refutation on that basis would have been recorded. At the time there were religions which to the uninitiated referred to real people but were revealed to be parable to the initiates.
I think the writing of Josephus has its only problems, not the least it has been tampered with.
Again I am happy to accept, particularly with historical figures, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do think there is a problem with the idea that there is nothing unusual in there being little evidence of an itinerant Jewish preacher. If the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles record anything of his teaching or anything about a real person that teaching must have made a substantial impact on his followers. Otherwise it is unlikely that there is any reflection on the historical character in the gospel. The fact that any jewish preacher was crucified by the Romans does not prove that he was the spark that ignited Christianity. Even if there were a jewish preacher who was a follower of Rabbi Hillel crucified does that mean real Jesus?
The absolute proliferation of heresy in the early Church has always struck me as unlikely if the leaders of the Church could actually fall back on a received teaching or direct knowledge of Christ. However as much respect is paid to Paul who simply claimed 'inspiration' and 'visions' of Jesus.
In the end I don't think it's a question that can be definitively answered but I do think it is an interesting one.
-
I'm pretty sure the reason Paul had as much influence as he did was not because of being accepted by the other Christians (he wasn't), but because he preached to Greek and Roman people.
-
I'm not claiming to have proof by any stretch. Proving something like this is impossible. What I'm saying is a) a historical Jesus fits the available evidence better and with fewer assumptions then a mythic one does. and b) The advocates of Jesus Mythicism greatly overstate the strength of their arguments.
1) The lack of documentation is par for the course on ancient history.
2) Religious movements can form around possibly non-existent prophets like Frum, but it is far more commen for their founders to be actual people.
3) The similarities between Jesus and various pagan figures are mostly superficial and/or appear to be later additions to the Jesus story.
For example various stories about Gods or Heroes being born or concieved by supernatural means are held up as parallels to the Virgin Birth. But the details of these stories are mostly quit different. For example Dionysus was conceived by Zeus having sex with his mother, who was then murdered by Hera only for Zeus to take the baby from her womb and carry it to term in his thigh. This has nothing in common with the Jesus story. And on top of that the Virgin Birth does not appear in Mark and is believed to have been a later addition to the story that the very earliest Christians didn't believe it.
Now I'll grant you that mark is about as historically accurate as I would expect a biography of L Ron Hubbard written by Tom Cruise. But that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from it if we read between the lines. The oldest versions of Mark show a much more Jewish Messiah then later gospels, an ordinary person who is anointed by God after being baptized by John the Baptist not a divinely conceived demi-god. The more explicitly divine aspects of Jesus seem to have come later in Christian history. And I've already brought up the inconsistencies argument, for example in Mark Jesus fails to perform miracles when skeptics ask for them, in the gospel of John those same skeptics are amazed by Jesus awesome miracles. Again this is not proof, but it seems more consistent with the idea of Jesus being an actual early first century Jewish cult leader who's story was broken telephoned and paganized then a non-existent figure.
Also about Paul, Paul does talk about Jesus about Jesus being a flesh and blood human on earth, not a purely vision
Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well. Except it simply isn't true. While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn't giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus' earthly life in many places. He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother, and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1 Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1 Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1 Cor. 2:8 ) and that he died and was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19).
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Now is possible that Paul was lying when he said he met Jesus brother James and would have revealed this was just a parable to initiates to the religion, but there is no evidence to support the idea that Paul thought of Jesus as anything but a physical Human who lived on Earth, or that any other Christians did not.
Jews of the first century probably were culturally influenced by Romans. but to the point that they would be creating a fictional messiah who bore little resemblance to the traditional Jewish idea of a messiah by cobbling together various pagan stories? Probably not.
Also about Josephus, the consensus among historians is that of the two times he mentioned Jesus, one was tampered with (Antquities XVIII 3.4) but the second was not (Antiquities XX 9.1). Likewise Tacitus could have been mislead by Christians, but this is out of character. He was well known for rejecting hearsay and rumor as a basis for Historical research and hated Christians with a passion and probably wouldn't have trusted them for information.
-
a) a historical Jesus fits the available evidence better and with fewer assumptions then a mythic one does.
Personally, I remain unconvinced of Jesus's historicity; the lack of conviction is always at least one fewer assumption than the positive claim.
-
Until you take into account alternate explanations of where the myth came from he he didn't exist, the specifics of which have their own assumptions that don't fit the available evidence.
-
Until you take into account alternate explanations of where the myth came from he he didn't exist, the specifics of which have their own assumptions that don't fit the available evidence.
That's you reading into my lack of conviction, not any necessary implications of it.
-
Thanks for that Article Skybison, both the parts were fascinating.
Honestly I don't find either the references in Josephus or Tacitus very convincing. Also I think that those references in Galatians are ambiguous particularly in the light of Galatians 1.11-1.12:
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
I also think this reinforced by Galatians 3:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
I think it shows an emphasis on revelation rather than what we would call history or received teaching.
Nor do I think the reference to the baptism by John the Baptist is conclusive either. Although it does show an evolution in Christian thought.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for the historical case is that he came from Nazareth. Whether or not the 'retconning' of Bethelhem, is significant or not it seems to me that the obscurity of Nazareth is very strong for the historical case. In the absence of some strong symbolic meaning for Nazereth it seems strange to have it being the place from where a mythic being is said to originate. I don't think the 'Nazarite'/ 'Nazerene' explanation is very strong.
-
You're welcome :)
At this point I've used up all my arguments, so I'll leave you with another great piece from the same guy. http://www.strangenotions.com/why-history-isnt-scientific/
Most people in the modern atheism get there by way of science, and they looooove science, and I mean physically. But history, especially ancient history, is a very different field and research is conducted very differently and certainty is much harder to establish. So a line of evidence or lack of it can be very convincing to the scientifically inclined but not really mean much to a historian.
-
There's a hell of an argument in the comments too. Somebody who is apparently agnostic about the existence of Jesus had a major crack at the author, although I thought this comment was interesting:
I personally don't know if Jesus existed or not, as I cannot say if Ned Ludd existed or not. But I do know traditions from the past can preserve information about non-existent people. A famous example is Ebion, the reputed founder of the Ebionite Christian heretical group. He is first mentioned by Tertullian and his story grows through the church fathers. The name Ebionite comes from a Hebrew word meaning "poor", so poor people were Ebyonim. This is the source for the name of the group and the founder is invented by mistake assuming that the group name is derived from its founder. How does one know if Jesus did not enter tradition based on a mistake or false assumption or desire, as Ebion did?
He goes on but it is mainly vitriol at the author.
-
You're welcome :)
At this point I've used up all my arguments, so I'll leave you with another great piece from the same guy. http://www.strangenotions.com/why-history-isnt-scientific/
Most people in the modern atheism get there by way of science, and they looooove science, and I mean physically. But history, especially ancient history, is a very different field and research is conducted very differently and certainty is much harder to establish. So a line of evidence or lack of it can be very convincing to the scientifically inclined but not really mean much to a historian.
I read that, and I've got to say it sounds like the author has a dog in this fight. His notions of "certainty" and "proof" in the sciences are flawed; at least on the pedantic level he's approaching the layman's knowledge of history with. If he doesn't get his science strawman right, why should I trust him on history?
Plenty of sciences deal largely with looking into the past. Forensics, astronomy, and paleontology come to mind; paleontologists arguably deal with a far more piecemeal, rearranged, and destroyed record of events than written history. The scientific method helps even when you aren't literally repeating past events in the lab.
-
I have to say I remain agnostic on the historicity of Jesus but am very interested in it. I don't think the references in the Pauline Epistles are particularly strong for his existence. Paul says all his knowledge comes from revelation. He clearly states this knowledge is better than actual physical knowledge. This brings me to the Council of Jerusalem which is interesting (Gore Vidal wrote a very funny book about it and jesus 'Live from Golgotha'). If this actually took place I find it fascinating that people who actually knew the historical jesus were prepared to sit down with Paul and reach an agreement with him about the new religion. Rather than simply denouncing him as a false prophet. Whereas if there was no earthly jesus and they were all 'brothers of the lord' through revelation it is much more difficult to denounce his teachings by saying it was contrary to something Jesus actually said.
You'd probably like this quote from the Comments Ironchew:
The topic, as stated in the title, involves a historical examination of the evidence for Jesus. O'Neill, who is as confused about his topic as he was several years ago, has spent more than half of his effort writing not about the historicity of Jesus but about Jesus mythicism and similar notions.
After a potted tour of these ancilliary topics, O'Neill tries to get onto topic. He examines the different approaches to the story of John the Baptist. While acknowledging that the writers have their own ideas about Jesus, he concludes somehow that the differences indicate "that the baptism of Jesus by John was a historical event and known to be such and so could not be left out of the story." This non sequitur seems to be one that O'Neill likes, as he has repeated it often through the years. The logic seems to be that if three writers working the same material in different locations can't get a story straight, it must somehow be true. I hope that makes sense to you. I'm used to hearing urban legends that have so many different variations and spawning more with every iteration.
The next so-called historical indicator in O'Neill's litany involves Bethlehem and Nazareth. Despite two gospels telling us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, O'Neill wants to believe that he must have been born in Nazareth, as the name Bethlehem is derived from Micah 5:2 taken as a prophecy for the messiah, and Nazareth was so insignificant. Beside assuming that Jesus is historical here to have come form some place, he assumes he can second guess the development of Christian traditions. There is no historical examination here. It is rather a text analysis unrelated to any historical evidence whatsoever.
The inexorable litany moves to the crucified messiah notion, which for O'Neill is strange because it doesn't fit Jewish notions of the messiah. That certainly is true, but it is also certainly true that several religions cropped up at the same time that featured just as strange ideas. As Christianity emerged from this context, strangeness of ideas is not a functional criterion on which to bas historicity. Paul, according to Acts, is from Tarsus in Cilicia, a land where the religion of Mithras was popular according to Plutarch's Life of Pompey, at least a century before the time of Paul. Mithras, the Romans learned, saved the world by slaying a bull in a cave. How that weird event worked, I have no idea, but arguments from strangeness don't help us understand history. We are still waiting for O'Neill to examine anything historical.
At this point he tries to use classical texts that were maintained by Christians, hoping that they will add to the history he has already established. The first comes from Josephus with a famous section in the Antiquities of the Jews known as the Testimonium Flavianum or TF (18.63-64). This passage is between two calamities that befell the Jews. In fact the second calamity starts with "About this time another [=a second] calamity three the Jews into an uproar."(18.65) The first was related in 18.55-62 involving Pontius Pilate brutalizing the Jews. Wedged in between is the TF of Christian interest, separating the second calamity from the first. O'Neill admits that at least some of the TF is fake. He then attempts to show that the rest of it must be true through dubious textual analysis, which I have debated with him in the past. Obviously there is no history to be done in simple text massaging.
A further passage from Josephus relates to a man killed by the high priest of the time, Ananus. The text describes this man as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James". Apparently the only reason this James is mentioned is to show that Ananus acted outside his authority, yet the text has a little Christian nugget to describe this James, citing the gospel of Matthew, 1:16 which talks of "Jesus called Christ". The structure of the text placing "the brother of Jesus called Christ" shows that the writer is more interested in Jesus than in either James or Ananus. The Greek text also features awkward language not appropriate for the language of the time of Josephus. The English now reflects the word order of the text, but one would have expected an order reflected in strange English, thus: "the of Jesus the called Christ brother, whose name was James". This is the only other place in the works of Josephus that uses the word "christ", despite the fact that the writer reworked the Old Testament which used the notion over forty times. Josephus avoided the term, yet his text uses it twice for Jesus. You can imagine the apologetic response, which involves assuming the conclusion that O'Neill is aiming for.
O'Neill follows his attempt at using Josephus with more off-topic comments on mythicism. A person whop is interested in history is supposed to be making a substantive case for history.
The last stop in this via crucis is poor old Tacitus, whose text, at least the relevant portion, survives in an 11th century manuscript copied at the monatery of Monte Cassino. It features the Testimonium Taciteum (TT), cited by O'Neill. It was a text that was unknown to early christian writers who searched for witnesses to Jesus in antiquity. It features some similarities to the work of a Christian writer Sulpicius Severus (circa 400 CE), who apologists claim copied from Tacitus, though there is no evidence that the similarities stemmed from the TT. The reverse cannot be discounted and fits the behavior of Christian writers who invented letters between Paul and Seneca, wrote fanciful "apocryphal" gospels, fake letters of Julian, even a fake donation of Constantine to the church. The art of the fake is quite familiar in the arsenal of early Christian writers.
But looking at the TT one finds some very strange aspects. It is always presented out of context so one cannot see how it fits its text. The full passage deals with the great fire of Rome and Nero's relation to it. It attempts to show that Nero was responsible without saying so. Immediately before the TT, Tacitus writes, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order"—from Nero by implication. All human efforts failed to banish the belief, yet the TT tells us that Nero then tried to blame the Christians, despite all human efforts failing. It makes much better sense to see the TT as another Christian insertion in a Christian preserved text than to accuse Tacitus of such incoherent writing.
There are several other problems with the TT, though the worst is that it interferes with the developing attack by Tacitus on Nero for being responsible for the fire, which was reached with the beautifully subtle "the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order". This is now followed with a martyrdom of Christians which grabs the impetus from condemning Nero and gives it to the deaths of the naughty Christians who were so poorly treated that they earned the sympathy of the people.
O'Neill is not a historian of the period. He is a naive reader who shows no depth of interaction with his sources. A historian sets out to uncover history, not to attempt to negate non-histories. There are no contemporary works to help us uncover a historical Jesus. This doesn't mean that there was no historical Jesus, but that the history cannot be more than asserted. And history is not based on assertion. The historicity of Jesus is clouded by the fact that we have no evidence from the beginning, no eye witnesses, no contemporaries. It is further clouded by the process of selective Christian preservation of the writers of the ancient past. That process we can observe is one of invention and manipulation when it comes to Christian matters. It is hopeful to assume that it is not the case when analyzing the literary texts O'Neill has chosen.
There is no history in this "Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus". One wonders why O'Neill, a professed atheist, bothered. It surely doesn't matter to him whether Jesus existed or not.
I am also interested in other mythic/historical religious figures.