GakuseiDon

If they are two different things, then I agree with them both.

Yes, agreed.

Clivedurdle

Returning to Pagels and radical gnostic xians, my reading of Pagels is that she makes a slam dunk case for a gnostic Paul, but for various reasons - probably a mix of scholarly and faith - does not join up the dots she has laid out. It seems others - including "radical" xians - and me from an atheist perspective - have done that.

Agnosticism may be the correct position, but looking at it from a balance of probabilities perspective I see no need for an HJ grain in this particular oyster to create this "pearl" of xianity.

I do wonder if we might have a socially engineered religion here.

gurugeorge

Another interesting example history that G.A. Wells mentioned was "William Tell", who was a literary creation who eventually came to be believed (vaguely) to have been a real figure in Swiss history. Not a god, but it's a clear recent case of reification of an imaginary entity.

I think you are right about what you said in an earlier post that it's important to look at how contemporary religions form. And when you look you see both things: sometimes there are people who are later deified, and sometimes there are deities (or other kinds of imaginary entities, literary creations, etc.) who are "peopleified".

Another important example of "peopleificiation" would be some of the figures from Judaic history - some of the famous prophets, kings, etc., of the Bible may be literary creations who were later believed to have been real people.

Vorkosigan

Don, here is what Humphrey's site says:

In the 21st century we face the paradox that though the unmasking of biblical fraud has gone further than ever before, global geopolitics finances and encourages a vociferous restatement of biblical fundamentalism and inerrancy, a torrent of misinformation, the sheer quantity of which can be overwhelming.

Most people have neither time nor inclination to delve deeply into the mass of evidence and argument. Christian apologists are ever-ready to denounce a "Christ-myther" as an isolated crank on the fringes of sanity, unworthy of serious consideration.

But their strident hostility hides the fear that the downfall of their superhero may not be far off. And what they can no longer deny or suppress is the fact that the exposure of "Jesus Christ" for the fabrication that it is, far from being the manic pursuit of odd-balls, has been embraced and endorsed by a continuous stream of talented scholars in all countries.

YOU'VE REARRANGED THE QUOTE TO MAKE IT SAY WHAT YOU WANT. You left out the little fact that the second paragraph of your construction isn't connected to the first and in fact occurs in a different section, the next one. The "their strident hostility" refers not to scholars but to Christian apologists. Here's the top of the quote:

During the 20th century, rationalism, archaeology, and new techniques of scientific investigation forced a retrenchment upon defenders of the faith, despite the periodic upsurges in religious fervour. To accommodate the accumulating and undeniable evidence of biblical error, variegated "lives" of Jesus proliferated like algae on a sun-soaked pond.

"Mainstream" New Testament scholars, many of them committed Christians, had found a new home. A shadowy “Jesus of history” was now held to have existed beneath the admitted accumulated layers of faith-based fabrication.

Fearful to acknowledge that both their faith and careers were built on a monumental misconception they speculated on any number of fanciful ideas – a radical rabbi Jesus, a Mediterranean peasant Jesus, a Jesus with wife and family, a Jesus who travelled to England, India or Japan, a Stoic or Cynic philosopher Jesus – a Jesus for all seasons and all tastes. A hundred or more possible "biographies" for the godman contended, each contriving to avoid the obvious truth that no genuine reality underpinned the sacred fable.

Michael

gurugeorge

Yeah, the "Constantine dunnit" option is always tempting. But I think most of the theories which propose it have it the wrong way round. I like the theory that Constantine wasn't the driver, and that Catholicism was "the invention of a number of bishops" (Tertullian was it? after his conversion to Montanism?).

i.e., certain bishops (one of the most likely being Eusebius) got their heads together and, based on an extant strain of Christianity (let's call it proto-Catholicism) which took a more literal interpretation of the Christ figure, engineered a religion which would be an engine for mass conversion (only faith required), and which would have a "backstory" that would give the bishops absolute authority (through the concept of "apostolic succession") in an ecclesiastical heirarchy. They then presented this to Constantine, and suggested it might make a good version of Christianty (which was already, in its variously more-or-less gnostic forms, a fairly popular religion in the Empire, because of its conformability to paganism and neo-Platonism, and with which Constantine would have been quite familiar and sympathetic, on account of his mother's Christianity) with which to help unite the Empire. Rather than being something sinister in intention, in fact it might well have been done from the best possible motives, by people who saw their literalist version of the story as most likely to capture peoples' hearts in the mass, and bring them to a better way of life (at least raise them up a rung from hylic to psychic). Even the attempt at absolute political control of the proposed organisation (via the concept of "apostolic succession") might have been intended as a way of keeping the dogma tight so the conversion-engine would work.

If I had the leisure, this is the path of inquiry I'd pursue, personally. The Paul thing makes particular sense in this context. Early, Pauline Christianity was a proto-Gnostic reworking of the pagan Redeemer myth in Jewish dress. This became popular amongst the gentiles, and students of Paul (probably the same as a certain "Atomos" mentioned by Josephus, and the Simon Magus of Acts, cf. Detering) like Marcion and Theudas (who later taught Valentinus) later went on to become founders of the real Christianity that spread throughouth the Empire at that time, a variegated mixture of proto-Gnostic and Gnostic paganized Judaism (which is the Christianity that the early proto-Catholicists lamented was already well-established wherever they tried to spread their more literal version of the myth, cf. Bauer). Since something like the "letters" of Paul were already popular amongst many schools of Christians throughout the Empire, they had to be included in the canon in some form, but brought into line with the engineered Catholic "apostolic backstory".

youngalexander

Please God, tell me I do not have to read all of this bloody thread.

I vote MJ - is that OK?:devil1:

andrewcriddle

How reliable is the wiki article ?

There are various reviews of Gnostic Paul on the Web
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul19...ookreview9.htm
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...gels%20(Green)
They indicate that the book is about how 2nd century Christians interpreted Paul rather than about what Paul originally meant.

Andrew Criddle

(I posted this in response to Clivedurdle before seeing that Toto had already posted a similar response)

LoungeHead

Jesus Christ is not just a myth. He is a myth built built on intellectual property theft, with further fabrication as he became popular, and a bit of identity theft.

Theft of Crucifixion myth:

Among the religions of the day, several were based on a crucifixion myth; including Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and several others. Dionisus, for example, was depicted as being given a crown of ivy, dressed in a purple robe, and was given gall to drink before his crucifixion. The depiction on a Greek vase from the 5th century B.C.E. even shows a communion being prepared.

Theft of Virgin Birth myth:

The Jesus Christ virgin birth is a myth borrowed from the birth of Tammuz, a pagan god from northern Israel who was supposed to have been born of the virgin Myrrha.

Theft of Salvation myth:

Osiris' followers knew their fate after death depended on the morality of the life they lead before death. The ancient Book of the Dead, 1250 BC, pictures the Ka—the soul—of dead believers standing in the presence of Osiris as their judge. If they could recite a list of their good deeds in life, Osiris rewarded them with eternal life.

The fact that these stories are today almost exclusively associated with the myth of Jesus of Nazareth, show how both myth and history is often outright expropriated - and even rewritten - by the victors, in their own way.

Fabricated birth place of Jesus Christ:

Nazareth, as a place name, did not even come into existence until Emperor Constantine's mother, searching for the holy sites in Palestine in the fourth century on which to build preservatory basilicas, simply invented the name for a pre-existing village for which only very flimsy evidence tied it to the site of the youth of Jesus.

Theft of historical identity of Yeishu ha Notzri:

There are several interesting references to a Yeishu ha Notzri (note the resemblance of the name to "Jesus of Nazareth"), who traveled around and practiced magic during the reign of Alexander Janneus, who ruled Palestine from 104 to 78 BCE. These references in the Talmud used by Jewish scholars gives us some detail. Yeishu ha Notzri was considered by the temple authorities of the time to be a troublemaking heretic, and when they had finally had enough of him, they put him on trial. He was convicted of heresy, sentenced to wander the city for 40 days, with a crier going before him, shouting that if anyone had reason why he should not be executed, they should come forward. When no did, he was stoned to death, and his body hung from a tree on the eve of passover, in 88 B.C.E. Note the death on the eve of passover. Note also the hanging of the body from a tree - at the time, a sign of despicability, with its resemblance to the crucifixion myth.

Most of the above is the argument presented by Scott Bidstrup. http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Doug Shaver

That is a point well taken, but I think "secular scholar" would have made it more effectively.

spamandham

I suppose it isn't clear to me that "jesus existed as a historical figure" is simpler than "jesus is a composite myth". The former then raises numerous other questions, such as who was he, why did a movement start based on him, why are the earliest records of him more mystical than historical, etc., for which there are no answers.

The latter supposition is consistent with all the evidence I'm aware of. I suppose that's why I asked the question. "pure myth" seems more parsimonious to me.