fatpie42

I didn't realise he made this list more than once. That's the book I read and I was fairly sure birth was one of the "indisputable facts". Thanks for sorting that confusion out.

aa5874

Your suggestion is wrong.

There are TONS of written evidence to support Myth Jesus. You will NOT ever find actual physical evidence for Myths ONLY written statements DESCRIBING an entity as Mythology.

The Myth evidence for Jesus SURPASSES probably all MYTHS combine.

We have 27 books of Mythology in the Extant Codices and Multiple versions of those 27 books where Jesus was described as being FATHERED by a Ghost, was God, the Creator, who walked on sea-water and transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

There are Thousands of written texts filled with the Mythological Jesus.

What is completely missing is that we have ZERO sources for an HJ of Nazareth.

This is quite extra-ordinary.

If Jesus was a figure of history then we would expect perhaps a LITTLE Myth with LOTS of History.

We have the Complete REVERSE.

ALL MYTHOLOGY and NO history for Jesus.

The Myth Jesus theory is extremely good.

HJ cannot be advanced at all.

It must also be noted that even if Jesus was described as human with a human father such a description does NOT automatically eliminate Jesus from still being a Myth.

Romulus and Remus were described as human brothers, born of the same woman and lived in Rome yet they are considered Mythological simply because they have no real history.

Robin Hood and King Arthur are portrayed as human but they can be considered MYTHS if no real history can be found.

But, the Jesus character is FAR worse, it was described as NON-HUMAN. It was described as MYTH from the very start. It WALKED on sea-water and was NOT ever claimed to have a human father.

fatpie42

I'm probably being naive in my hope that you'll give me a constructive reply here, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

I absolutely admit that there are hundreds of accounts of Jesus which depict a wholly symbolic and mythological Jesus. (I wouldn't be able to confidently say thousands myself, but I'm willing to take your word for it.) However, it must be noted that most of them are written after the synoptic gospels. What's more there is a definite change in writing style from the synoptic gospels to the later gospels such as those of the gnostics. There's even a pretty clear change in style between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John in the Bible (which is why Iraneus had to make the case to have it included).

Still, though there may be a change in style from the somewhat closer to historical style of the synoptic gospels to the highly mythological style of the gnostic gospels, there is another change of style before that. As I'm sure you'll agree, there is definite change in style between the early epistles and the synoptic gospels which came after them. So I'm willing to accept that the synoptic gospels may well be the anomaly here.

In actual fact, it is my own suspicion that the synoptic gospel writers were taking collections of myths and making efforts to form them into a historical narrative. There's even evidence of this in elements such as the demonisation of the Pharisees which appears to be added into any stories about Jesus arguing with those religious figures. I would suspect that the original story was a wise figure (as often found in these kinds of stories) getting one over on the local religious figures. Not simply arguing with them, but using their own words to trick them. When the synoptics are writing (after Paul) they are trying to fit these stories into a narrative where, as Paul asserted, Jesus is crucified. As such, any stories where this figure is arguing with Pharisees are used as a possible explanation for this event. Even in spite of the eventual trial being run by the high priests, with the Pharisees seemingly absent.

It's interesting that you should put it this way, as most King Arthur stories we remember today are updates by a later figure. Why would the first king of England have castles and knights in shining armour? In such an era technology was not as advanced (certainly not in England anyway). Those King Arthur stories are clearly based on much earlier stories and their content cannot possibly be remotely true. Actually King Arthur is much more easily proven mythical because a King in the distant past who controlled all of England would leave an archeological impact which we would be able to find. In fact, it's certain that any real King Arthur could not have left an impact such as successful kings like King Alfred and the idea of his stories, even as massive embellishments, seems unlikely. Francesca Stavrakopoulou uses the argument of a lack of archeological data to dismiss the historicity of King David in a similar way.

If we agree that the Epistles are the earliest records we have of Jesus, then surely we have to accept that, at that stage, Jesus' birth might well have been presumed. On the one hand I would note that walking on the surface of the sea is not stated in the Epistles, but on the other hand Paul's descriptions of Jesus are even more abstract and mythological in character.


The point I made earlier is that Guru Nanak from Sikhism (one of the more recent religions) seems likely to have been a real person, yet he has similarly remarkable stories to those found in the NT. Sometimes mythical elements can embellish the story of a real person rather than a real person being presumed behind embellished myths. Another similar example closer to the context of Christianity might be the saints. We have ridiculously over-the-top haggiographies and in some cases there may have been no saint at all (St. Briget of Ireland is strongly suspected to have originally been an Irish pagan goddess), however in many cases we are quite sure there was a real person whose life story was ridiculously exaggerated with tales of miracles.

aa5874

What do you hope to accomplish by "probably being naive"?

I really don't want you to accept what I say blindly. We have the NT and you can SEE the WRITTEN evidence that I have PRESENTED.

Please, I do not argue by being naive. I READ the Gospels and RELEVANT material before I argue.

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark are NOT really Gospels. They are about a character called Jesus who walked on sea-water, transfigured, carried out Implausible miracles but was still BETRAYED, ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED by his OWN disciples and the Jews and was Later EXECUTED.

The Jesus of gMark was a PHANTOM.

I need SOURCES not SUSPICIONS.

I really don't know how it is possible to HISTORIZE Jesus by claiming he was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost Both in gMatthew and gLuke and that he walked on sea-water.

It is the Complete opposite.

The Synoptics authors did NOT claim Jesus had a human father and the author of gLuke managed to write DETAILS of the Holy Ghost conception.

The Synoptic authors MADE sure that their Jesus was PUBLICLY known to have been FATHERED by a Ghost.

I guess you are still "probably being naive" since you should know that I have found apologetic sources that show that the Pauline writings were NOT known up to the middle of the 2nd century.

In 1 Cor. 15 the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to see the Jesus in a non-historical state and he used Christian Scripture to claim Jesus died for OUR SINS was buried and was raised on the THIRD day.

Nowhwere in Hebrew Scripture is it claimed a Man died for the Sins of other men. It is Goats and Bulls that are sacrificed for Sins in Hebrew Scripture in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

By Paul's own words in 1 Cor. 15.3-4 then the Pauline writer was NOT the earliest writer of the Jesus story. And further, there was a Jesus story BEFORE wrote his epistles because the very Paul claimed he persecuted the Faith he now preached. See Galatians 1.

I accept Paul was LAST and that he used Christian Scripture as the writer claimed.

The existence or non-existence of Guru Nanak needs a separate and independent inquiry and the results of the inquiry cannot be transferred to Jesus of the NT.

Jesus of the NT also NEEDS a separate and independent inquiry, too.

In the NT, the very Synoptics it was PUBLICLY Published that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, that he Walked on sea-water, Transfigured, resurrected on the THIRD day and ascended.

I have presented sources that show Jesus as Mythology now we need credible sources to show his historicity.

If Jesus was a figure of history then we would EXPECT some Myth and some History but all we have is Myth.

The Myth Jesus theory is EXTREMELY well-supported.

andrewcriddle

I think you may be blurring the line between Jesus Mythicism and Jesus Agnosticism

The claim that maybe Christianity began among followers of a Galilean preacher and faith healer called Jesus who has executed by Pilate one Passover at Jerusalem, but maybe it began instead in some other (unspecified) way; is IMO a form of Jesus Agnosticism

Jesus Mythicism at least as the term is usually used on this forum involves arguing for a specific alternative model of Christian origins.

Andrew Criddle

fatpie42

Naturally I'm not claiming certainty or even to have a strong argument. So yes, that sounds about right. That's intentional.

Ah, sorry. I thought that was Jesus Historicism. I was completely denying that possibility. If there was a real figure, I don't think we can be sure that he was called Jesus, I think he is highly unlikely to have been killed specifically during Passover (after all, historically you can't have both the passover meal and the passover death unless he was tried and imprisoned for a year. Far more likely that the passover connection is symbolic), and if he was crucified it would only be "by Pilate" in the sense that Pilate would have needed to give the go-ahead (as he's unlikely to have made a personal appearance). So seeing as I reject this agnostic position, what is the historic position?

Well I figured we needed to do one thing at a time, but I have since stated my alternative model in the comments.

Essentially it's this. We know there were all sorts of stories made up about Jesus such as the child making clay doves and bringing them to life. That stories about this figure would have sprung up is not surprising. I think that there were many stories circulating in the area about wise men or faith healers and I think many of people preceding the gospel writers came to attribute many of these stories to their religious figure of Jesus.

Of course, the earliest account is Paul and the only even remotely plausible historical event regarding Jesus he seems concerned with is Jesus' death. Now if he's inspired solely by a random execution victim then it's back to the old "some guy named Jesus" problem. Even if Paul and/or other Epistle writers (Peter? John?) were inspired in their ideas by a particular victim it is not at all clear that they know anything about his life. It's still possible that as early as these writers they were inspired by the messages of the same stories which clearly inspired the gospel writers or it could be that the initial inspiration for the movement lay solely in a rather simpler myth about one god-man and his magical death.

In short, how does any myth form? I suspect something like that happened here too. Hardly controversial I feel...

fatpie42

It's not like I haven't got blooming reasons. (Seriously do you know that you posts all comes across as having an accusatory tone?) Much of those reasons are found in the OP which I spent time carefully outlining.

You say that you read the NT and you can see the evidence is there? Well that's what I'm doing too. The evidence is there.

It's a commonly accepted (yes I know that's not perfect evidence, but it's worth something) amongst scholars that the gospels were based on pre-existing pericopes. Then within gospels (including Mark) the attempts to tie these into a narrative related to real people are clear.

1. They make the Pharisees out to be villains. Why? Because Jesus argues with the Pharisees and, within their narrative, Jesus is going to be killed. To make the story work they need reasons for Jesus' death. They need precursors. It just so happens that, since the Temple was destroyed, the nearest competitors to early Christianity are the Pharisees, so making them the villains is relevant to their current situation and therefore their contemporary audience.

2. Pilate turns up in person to beg the local Jews in Jerusalem to let Jesus go. The contemporary situation is that they need Roman converts while meanwhile their initial Jewish base is gradually leaving the religion because they know what the messianic age is supposed to involve and that it blatantly hasn't arrived.

3. Geographical locations are being inserted. They want to show that Jesus is moving from one actual place to another actual place. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to insert varied locations they end up talking about "pigs running into the sea" in an area that is actually miles away from any sea. Surely this means the geographical locations are clearly an addition by the gospel writers?

You seem to think that "myth" means "no one believes it really happened. Greeks believed that Theseus, Perseus and Heracles were real people. Those are Jesus' competition. Just like the later haggiographies which have miracles added in order to parallel the life of Jesus and to impress their audience, the gospel writers are doing the same thing with their myths. (Either that or the storytellers they are getting this stuff from did it first.)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but my intention is to debunk the idea that stuff like geographical locations, malign intentions from the pharisees and interactions with Roman authorities were there and then the magical stuff was added later. My view here is that most of the magic stuff appeared first and that the more specific historical locations and political figures were added in later.

Rather than telling me how stupid I am, perhaps you could give a careful explanation of your position on this point?

What made you think I would disagree with this? Did you mean to pose this as a direct criticism of what I'd written or were you just explaining your position? (I'm definitely finding this interesting!)

You and no other scholar? Yeah, that's not me being naive....

Who else dates ALL Pauline writings to as late as mid 2nd Century?

Even if I accept this late dating for Paul, what does that make the earliest account?

So?

1. I said the epistles were the earliest accounts. I used the term intentionally becuase there's other early epistles asides from Paul. There's also epistles from Peter and John.

2. Whether Paul was the first to write or not is irrelevant if we no longer have any of the earlier writings.

1. That the religion already existed and Paul persecuted members does not mean that the myths existed yet as anything other than oral tradition.

2. Even if he used Christian Scripture (and I'd be interested to know the reference for that) that doesn't mean that the scripture Paul used is found in any of the writings that have survived today.

I really wish you'd make some effort to present the case in simple terms rather than insisting that it's common sense.

aa5874

You think only EXPERTS can find evidence. How naive!! I can show things in the NT that Scholars don't talk about.

I am NOT naive.

The Pauline writings, P 46, are PRESENTLY dated by paleography to the mid 2nd to 3rd century. If you accept any earlier dates you have ZERO legs to stand on.

The Pauline writings, P46, have NOT been dated by paleography to the 1st century and before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

And further, the Pauline writings does NOT even have any biography of Jesus when he was supposedly on earth. The Pauline writings are about the Resurrection of Jesus.

So ? you ask!!! The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are products of fraud and forgeries and were ALL written FAR later than ADMITTED by the Church.

All the writings in the NT Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

It CANNOT be shown that the Pauline writings are the earliest accounts if you mean from the 1st century and Before the Fall of the Temple.

The earliest Gospels are dated by Paleography to the 4th century and the Pauline writings, P 46, are dated by Paleography to mid 2nd-3rd century.

The Pauline writings, P 46, are considered earlier than the 4th century Gospels since they dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century. That is all.

Well it may mean quite the opposite. You don't really know what it means.

I know that in "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25 that it is claimed Paul KNEW of Luke so I know it can mean Paul used gLuke.

Non-apologetic sources did NOT account for the Pauline Messiah called Jesus Christ.

You must realise that I have "TONS" of data at my finger tips that you may not even know exists.

I can only present the WRITTEN evidence for the Myth Jesus theory. I can't help you to understand or accept what I write.

ALL I do is PRESENT the written evidence for My claims.

That is all. CLAIM+SOURCE.

I don't have enough time to do anything else.

Sheshbazzar

Like actually take the time to understand the intents of these various texts.

mountainman

But do you see that in the absence of unambiguous evidence the arguments from either side are obliged to be hypothetical. In this sense, a great deal of the argument is involved in the communication and agreement upon postulates that need to be raised in order to address each item of the evidence. I see the argument as being in the choice of postulates.

Some choose the HJ as their postulate, and some choose the MJ. Each party then attempts to present evidence to fit their hypothesis, and to refute the hypotheses of their detractors.



I too think the the MJ is the stronger position. However I will immediately make explicit that this is a hypothetical conclusion, in the spirit of getting the HJ theorists also to make explicit their own "hidden postulates" by which they see the evidence manifested for the support of the HJ. There is very very very little evidence, and the arguments are about its interpretation. That is, the arguments can be resolved to a spectrum of hypotheses (or postulates) held by those who are examining and explaining the evidence.





These 7 points are all important in the extendible array of analyses that can be arraigned against, and challenge, the dominant conceptual framework that we are dealing with "historical issues". I see them as essential in the sense that they represent 7 small elements of a massive 4-dimensional jigsaw puzzle called "the mystery of the history of christian origins".


At the end you write:
I agree, on multiple series of accounts. I think one key word is "historicity" where this is defined as a measure of historical authenticity. It is important to understand that the measure of historicity can be both positive or negative. For example, from the thread positive and negative historicity of the HJ etc in BC&H

My final comment about the 7 points is that I could select 7 points from "The Hobbit" and go through the same exercise. We all know that the Hobbit is not an historically true narrative, however some of us appear to suspect that the New Testament may contain elements of historical truth.

All I can say on the resolution of this question is that sooner or later those who support either the MJ or the HJ hypothesis must do enough ancient historical research to put forward a theory which names the authors of the NT, and the dates they wrote, and the background reasons why these books were written in the Greek language. And the research must also explain the appearance of the non canonical books of the NT.

Many investigators suspect we are dealing with fiction, and thus the act of pious forgery. The MJ investigation must only conclude when the criminals responsible for such publications are publically identified. Do you have any suspects at the moment?