Toto

Many historians and even many Christians would dispute this.

archibald

That is indeed a very good question. Very good, IMO. How do religions normally get started?


No, I've specificaly framed the question in terms of asking if some explanations are more likely than others.

I can't (show that) I don't think anybody can, with the evidence we currently have.

That would be a 'no' answer, and as such, an MJ answer.

Though it is an interesting point.

How often has a religious figure/entity gone from 'seen as fictional/mythical/non-existent' to 'seen as historical' in such a short space of time?

J-D

I know Toto has already answered your question, but I have something to add to that answer.

Most people assume that the main Christian texts were written by Christians. Just because most people assume it does not mean it has to be true, but it's surely at least possible. If the main Christian texts were written by people who were Christians, then Christianity existed before the texts were written. If Christianity existed before the texts were written, then the existence of Christianity can be assumed as a background factor in explaining how the texts were written, but the origin of Christianity must be explained without reference to the existence of the texts.

Whichever way you look at it, 'how did the texts originate?' and 'how did Christianity originate?' are two different questions. We can consider the possibility that the answers are closely connected or even virtually identical, but we can also consider the possibility that they are not.

archibald

That makes no sense Toto. Behind what myth? Oh, I get it, you're assuming your conclusion. :]

I can't agree, on the contrary, 'HJ' fits the available evidence more easily. MJ resorts to more complicated explanations, because it proposes a series of unevidenced circumstances, amd more 'twists and turns'. These are ad hoc hypotheses.

Can't agree here either. Not until someone tells me that a figure/entity initially being seen as fictional/mythical/non-existent and then not long after being seen as historiocal, without any actual evidence for either the former or a switch to the latter, is not very unusual.

The duck test refers back to my list of items (a) to (f) etc in the OP. Basically, the very earliest accounts have more references to an earthly person than a non-earthly one. The selected verses in the later parts of the OP also come into this.

Toto

In modern days, we can observe that an individual, often mentally ill, draws some followers and figures out how to make money from them. Sometimes he get them to worship him (L.Ron Hubbad), more often he claims to have received divine revelation from a supernatural entity (the Angel Moroni, Jesus.)

We don't have the data on most ancient figures, but we do know of cases of legendary figures who went from legend to history in less than a generation. There is the example of Neil Ludd. There is also William Tell, although I don't know how long that process took. So we know that this is a possibility.

Toto

No, I'm not assuming my conclusion. I state above that everyone except fundamentalists agree that the gospel contain mostly myths. It is the historical hypothesis that calls for twists and turns. The mythicist hypothesis is actually simpler. We know that people make up stories and myths all the time - these are just more stories.

archibald

Have any of the supernatural entities proposed by any of these people been cited by them to have subsequently walked the earth? And if so, did anyone believe them if they said this?

Actually, I'm not sure if this 'how do religions generally start' isn't a much bigger question, perhaps even deserving of a thread to itself. We probably need to ask the question in relation to religions generally, or pre-Christian ones, since so many afterwards, in the 'west' especially, appear to be influenced by the Christian one, and may even be described as proto-Christian, thereby adding a possible bias to the answer. A bias in favour of my contention, I might add, so I am being generous in not using it. :]

Those two examples are (a) not religious figures and (b) it is not the case that they are as widely considered to have been historical. For example, the wiki page for both describes them as mythical and folk-hero respectively.

I agree it is a possibility. It just seems very unusual indeed, as far as we can tell.

archibald

That's ok. I was only half teasing. :]

Your thinking appears to run on different lines to mine. My point is that we are, on the face of it, presented with HJ evidence, by and large (that is to say the great majority of the evidence we do have is HJ oriented). The HJ hypothesis therefore does not require very many twists and turns. The twists and turns are necessary for MJ, to explain away evidenced things by proposing a series of unevidenced explanations and sequences of events.

Iskander

I know that Jesus was killed by some discontented disputants. Disagreement seems to have started early!

Jesus is the only explanation for the existence of Christianity, and I know of no other explanation. Do you?

Juststeve

But we also know of undoubtedly historical figure to whom legendary stories attached after their death. There is hardly a Roman Emperor who was not proclaimed a God after they died. To some miracles were attributed. Tacitus for example credited Vespasian with healing miracles including the restoration of sight to a blind man and the healing of a crippled hand. Do we on that account doubt the historicity of Vespasian?

Neil Ludd and William Tell are rather poor examples since neither inspired a religious movement nor such a corpus of literature during the first century after their death. The fact to be explained is the development of a Jesus movement in the first century the members of which thought Jesus was a recently present historical figure.

What is lacking from the myther case is positive evidence for their thesis, that no Jesus ever existed to inspire the movement. The best the myther can do is a rather weak effort to show that the Christian movement could possibly have begun without an historical Jesus. To that I say, sure its possible, but hardly the most likely explanation for the evidence.

Steve