gstafleu

I think there are two threads to the Jesus Myth theory, and I'd like to shortly describe them here. I will arbitrarily label these threads the D-thread and the P-thread.

The D-thread concerns itself with the Development of the Jesus concept. It argues one can discern such a development, both in the NT and in 1st and 2nd century literature outside the NT. The development starts with a Jesus that is a spiritual, non-human entity. As time progresses one can see the concept develop into a human walk-on-the-earth form. The D-thread argues that for an understanding and explanation of the earlier documents, a human Jesus is unnecessary. A forteriori it argues that there are places in the earlier literature that are in fact incompatible with a human Jesus.

The P-thread focuses on the Provenance of what Jesus, mainly the one from Gospels and Acts, is supposed to have said and done. It argues that just about everything he said and did can be traced back to other sources, either pre-existent or contemporary. The P-thread then argues that (1) therefore a human Jesus is not necessary to explain the acts and sayings, and (2) that such a collection of unoriginal deeds and utterings cannot be used as evidence for someone who is supposed to have originated them.

For completeness sake I should mention here the third of the two threads, the 0-thread. This thread observes that the historical evidence for a Jesus is thin on the ground. The main evidence comes from the not impartial religious literature. Evidence outside the canon is rare and disputed.

The Jesus Myth argument then consists of the following points:

0 - The historical evidence for a HJ is not convincing
P - Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources
D - There is a development discernable that starts with a non-human J and changes to a human one

Thread 0 can be countered by a "where there is smoke there is fire" argument: given all the stories there probably was someone on who they are based. This is no doubt possible, but it isn't much more than conjecture.

Thread P is more difficult to counter, except with a chicken-and-egg argument regarding the acts and sayings whose sources are not clearly antecedent: maybe an HJ originated these.

The way to counter thread D is to disagree with the analysis of the development. Doable, but not easy. One often has to fall back on arguments like "well, Paul just wasn't interested in Jesus' historical aspects." Not all that convincing.

In conclusion, each of the three threads has counter arguments. But the combination of the three is pretty much an HJ-killer.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

Not sure if you have the following in your three threads, that the growth of the Christ is strongly explained by looking at existing mystery type thinking, that mythological beasties - especially godmen like Hercules are a real comparison - that the gospels are more in the literature/play genres than history genre, that Paul is very gnostic, that the eucharist is an alchemic formulation that turns bread into flesh, wine into blood and like the philosophers stone, death into life.

To summarise, the evidence explicitly points at myth.

gstafleu

I think that all comes under P: Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources.

Gerard

mens_sana

Lack of originality is one of Archarya's arguments. Pretty weak one. Many respectable scholars today suffer from a lack of originality. If "history" is a matter of "probabilities" based on the information we have, then the I think the HJ is more probable than is a very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus.

Occasionally the ad hominum fallacy needs to be reexamined. While throwing epithets concerning personal background and demonizing the adversary as the "other," is genuinely an appeal only to emotions and group identity rather than to reason, there are aspects of ad hominum that are appropriate because they go to the credibility of the person. Is the person competent, trustworthy, of good will? Does the person use credible sources? Does the person's background and training make him a credible source? Does he have a good track record? Does the person have a bias or vested interest? Is there a clear basis on which the person reached his conclusion? I find that both the Fundamentalist/Evangelical and the hardened Mythicist have problems when held to these ad hominum standards.

gstafleu

Argumentum ad non-autoritatem?

Anyway, why is pointing out that everything J is supposed to have said and done is non-original weak? The question is if there is something like an "original J". If all his acts and sayings can be shown to be derived, then at the very least it is clear that these acts and sayings cannot be used as evidence for an original J. Add to this that many Xians hold that what J said were "the greatest words ever spoken." If these greatest words turn out to have been spoken by someone else first, doesn't that say something about J?

The point of the P-thread is that you cannot use acts and sayings as evidence for someone's existence if you can show where they came from--and it is not from the person whose existence you are trying to prove!

Gerard

Clivedurdle

Pardon?

Where did that come from?

What did the docetists believe?

I see a series of logical errors, Chinese whispers that no one was able to correct or even saw as a problem!

Remember the alleged earliest writer never met the guy, is writing at least a generation later, and is extremely thin about the reality of his jesi.

Humanising is a natural thing to do. Writing plays to explain it is a natural thing to do, assuming characters are real is common.

I have argued elsewhere that the historicity of Jesus did not happen until the enlightenment. When you believe in God and the Holy Spirit and demons and angels, Jesus being the son of God is not a problem, but even then they did not sing off the same hymn sheet - look at all the alleged heresies - actually they are all equally valid interpretations - for example how can a son be equal to the father?

mens_sana

What did the Ebionites believe?

While the Docetists believed in Christ as an "apparition," did they ever believe that it was not a historical event, one happening on our plane, as it were?

"How can a son be equal to the father?" When they're both members of a trinity, of course. What does the irrationality of the trinity have to do with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

aa5874

The probabilty of an HJ is not evidence of an historical Jesus. A unicorn is a plausible creature, but its plausibilty is not evidence of its existence.

The MJ postion is that there is no credible evidence to support an HJ. If anyone has the view that Jesus was indeed historical, then simply provide the relevant information, plausibilities and probabilities don't cut it.

There is no need to spread any conspiracy to turn mythical Jesus into carnal Jesus, since religous beliefs do not operate on reality. All supernatural beings are mythical. Jesus came into the world as a myth, lived as a myth, and left as a myth. Jesus is a myth.

gstafleu

Exactly. The three threads combined show that (a) there is not enough evidence for an HJ, and (b) we can see the creation of an HJ happening, without the need for any conspiracies. The HJ was probably created at or shortly after Mark. We only need other communities taking up the idea, no conspiracies are needed.

Gerard

spamandham

I've pondered whether the Ebionites might be the best evidence of a historical Jesus myself. The primary problems are that we only know anything about the Ebionites through writers who were not flattering toward them, and can reasonably have been expected to exaggerate the 'heresies' of the Ebionites.

Second, there is not strong evidence that they existed in the early/mid first century. Any time after that would be sufficient for Jesus to be turned from a character in a novel into a mythical figfure into a god-man historical figure, and then stripped of the magical aspects and converted into an ordinary holy man. The fact that the Ebionites used a Gospel purported to have been very similar to Matthew (but without the birth story and without magical aspects or atonement by crucifixion) makes it doubtful to me they were anything but later redacters. If they had original insight into HJ, it doesn't seem reasonable they would follow a version of Matthew.