archibald

In honour of objectivity and in pursuit of rational scepticism, I think it only fair to start a thread on one particular topic.

There is, it seems to me, one good, rational argument in favour of viewing Jesus as more likely to be a myth.

In fact, there is probably more than one, but I'm only doing one here. :]

It is, quite simply, the amount of mythicizing and fictionalizing* involved (and to some lesser extent the contradictions and the constant tampering with the texts etc) and the apparent speed with which it evolved (whether from a historical core or not) the combination of which does seem unusual.

I think the way Toto put it was rather good. He posited that if we (or historians) saw another figure from history with that much myth and inconsistency attached, we might be reasonable in being cautious before seeing them as historical. The 'biggie' of course, is that something very odd is supposed to have happened when he died. Whatever way you look at it, that is an extraordinary claim.

I can even see a basic point here from aa5874.

So, can anyone, especially fellow HJers, or MJers, or any shade of opinion in between or otherwize, argue against the idea that reason suggests caution in citing HJ, ideally by referencing other examples which would show that Jesus is not very unusual.


* I would distinguish the two. Anything superhuman or supernatural would be myth. Fiction could be more everyday stuff.

Iskander

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha, The Buddha is treated (considered) as a god by many and there are many stories about him as fanciful as any of the stories about the origin of Jesus and he originated a moral code that rules the fate of life after death...


Was the Buddha a living man? If having been glorified by other men/women denies his human existence, then it must be that very few people associated with religions can be said to have existed.

mysteriousworld

An example of a real person thought to be a godman? Sai Baba

archibald

Guatama Buddha: Probably one of the best candidates for comparison.

But, three things.

1. We don't know, I think, how fast the myth (if he didn't exist) took to accrete. Slow myths, or myths about people not long supposed dead, are not unusual, I think.

2. Lived and died, I think? No (or not as much) supernatural activities?

3. I heard (here) that a lot of Buddhists don't think of him as necessarily historical.

archibald

Sai Baba: Yes, good example of the principle, but not as 'magical'? (walking on water, dying and rising...).

Though having said that, there is a modern Sai baba who claims, and I think is believed to be the same deity, in the form of a reincarnated Sai Baba...which 'trick' does seem to have some very, er, magical ingredients. And he does magic, I think. Materializations and stuff.

Oops. He died this year. Was a modern reincarnated Sai Baba.

ETA: I correct myself below. He appears to be just as magical.

aa5874

I am yet to find any known corroborated figure of history who was PUBLICLY documented as the Child of a Holy Ghost.

The mere fact that we have PUBLIC DOCUMENTS known since at least the 4th century that Jesus was BELIEVED to a Holy Ghost child then we can ONLY accept Jesus as MYTH until credible evidence is found to CONTRADICT those PUBLIC documents.


No document from antiquity can CONTRADICT the PUBLIC DOCUMENTS called Codices that Jesus was BELIEVED to be a Child of a Ghost, God and the Creator and was BELIEVED to have ACTED like a Ghost when he walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The existence or non-existence of Sai Baba, or any other character, NEEDS a separate and independent inquiry and the results cannot be transferred to Jesus the Ghost Child as stated in the Extant Codices.

In the Extant Codices, Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18-20 in anyone of them. And after that See Luke 1, John1 and Galatians 1.

Jesus was a GHOST, A God and a Man.

The THREE in NONE.

archibald

Sai baba of Shirdi was believed to be an earthly incarnation of the god Krishna, and Sathya Sai Baba was believed to be the reincarnation of Sai baba of Shirdi. Either, or both, are no less fanciful that someone being believed to be the child of a heavenly entity, IMO.

The latter performed (supposedly) extraordinary miracles, including levitation, manifestations of objects (divine creations he called them), bilocation, etc.

I think we have the whole fruitcake for this one. Amount, speed (in his own lifetime), and types of claims attributed, even as far as 'coming back again'.

aa5874, How's the '50 year old jesus' thread going. I thought that was a good 'un. Seriously. Quite a contradiction.:]

Horatio Parker

Rather than try to show the Jesus story as less exceptional, which I don't think is any big task, why not ask is it possible that a movement worshipping a spirit felt it necessary to replace a spirit with a man?

My guess would be the appeal and success of the movement. The character of Jesus had such an impact that a story of Jesus as a man became imperative. Something in the nature of a move sequel. Not that the author of gMark was necessarily consciously filling a void, but whatever the motive, the success of the story created it's own momentum.

But, for consistency's sake, how about Apollonius of Tyre?

archibald

Hi Horatio,

I honestly thought we would have trouble coming up with many to match Jesus in terms of the OP, especially in terms of the speed and amount of 'mythologizing' and amount of early contradictions.

I think 'early contradictions' is the one thing either of the Sai Babas are missing, but on the other hand, this might be expected, because they clearly did live, and in modern times, when public records would be vastly better than 2000 years ago for a local figure in Judea. I think even the earlier one is in photographs?

And, on balance, I would disallow Guatama Buddha (strictly speaking, though he's still comparable in many ways). He more fits the bill of your common or garden 'figure from long ago', even if in his case it's not the dim and distant past, but only 400 years. Plus, if it's true that even many followers don't think of him as historical......

So, we still only have one, of the type I was looking for in the OP.

However, I have no objections to also comparing a different way, as you suggest. It had been my impression, however, that figures who started out as 'thought of as non-historical' and then 'became thought of as historical' (especially if the switch was historically 'quick') were as rare as hens' teeth.

Can you summarize if and how you think Appolonius of Tyre fits the bill? I perhaps don't know enough about how he was viewed early on.

Other examples of 'your' sort, though of slightly different varieties, which I had thought of were William Tell (still widely believed by many Swiss - 60% apparently - to have been historical, despite lack of evidence) and John Frum (probably non-existent). Possibly Bill Ludd, though I'm not sure.

GakuseiDon

Sai Baba Shirdi is an interesting example. According to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi