Ted Hoffman

In addition to Vorks response.

1. As has been shown by Robert Price, Dominic Crossan, Harold Leidner, Dennis MacDonald, Eissenman etc, the passion narrative (the core of Jesus story - since he suddenly shows up after a virgin birth and drama unfolds) was invented from other extant stories like Philos Against Flaccus and the OT (as Vork has mentioned.) through many "methods" like mimesis, midrash, literary borrowing, interpolations etc. This could NOT have been the case had Jesus existed as an actual being.
That means the Gospel story about Jesus has zero historical value.

2. Its known now that all extra-biblical references about Jesus (where found) are all forgeries and when not, have their historicity are marred by interpolations Josephuses Antiquities 18 and Antiquities 20 passages have lost any historical value because of this.

3. To explain (2), (1) and Vorks response above ( especially on the unfathomable epistolary silence), peculiar context, , Doherty argues that Paul and other early christians (the author of John etc) believed in Christ Logos. This, to me is the best argument for ahistoricity and this spiritual christ, juxtaposed with a fabricated historical one, is more plausible with what we know (there is what is called "proof of concept"). As Carrier states in his Review of Dohertys The Jesus Puzzle, there are 2 ways of arguing for ahistoricity and the second one is:

But not only are the mythers offering a plausible explanation: they have also demonstrated ahistoricity via the second proposed way of doing it:

And "argument from silence" is a mischaracterization of Dohertys thesis. Because that is just the beginning of his argument.
As Carrier concludes: "When we compare the standard historicist theory (SHT) with Doherty's ahistoricist or "mythicist" theory (DMT) by the criteria of the Argument to the Best Explanation, I must admit that, at present, Doherty wins on at least four out of the six criteria (scope, power, plausibility, and ad hocness ; I think DMT is equal to SHT on the fifth criterion of disconfirmation ; neither SHT nor DMT wins on the sixth and decisive criterion). In other words, Doherty's theory is simply superior in almost every way in dealing with all the facts as we have them"

And thats a historian's conclusion.

In summary, when compared to argument from silence,
Carrier says that an ABE..
Of course, some of you here disagree with Carrier. Speaking for myself, with the little that I know, a mythical Jesus explains just about everything that needs explaining regarding christianity. And thats why in the other thread, I asked, what is holding the agnostics back? That, is what I would like to know. Kirby, Toto, Vork - what is it?

(I know where the sympathies of the last two lie but...).
Only Quentin Jones has come out clearly as supporting the mythicist position.

Whats the secret?

Vorkosigan

In addition to Vorks response.
1. through many "methods" like mimesis, midrash, literary borrowing, interpolations etc. This could NOT have been the case had Jesus existed as an actual being.

I think this is overstating. Modeling events on other events is well known throughout antiquity, and reading much medieval history is simply re-reading Suetonius, Thucydides, etc. However, the range of models used in the Jesus literature suggests that it is probably an invention. I wonder if anyone has explored the extracanonical stuff for similar parallels. Not Thomas and Peter, but the stuff "farther out", so to speak.

Ted Hoffman

How, exactly, do you determine that its overstating? How do you arrive at that judgement?

MortalWombat

Not Doherty's mythicism. Here's a quote from Richard Carrier's review of The Jesus Puzzle:

Ted Hoffman

Yes sir. No early reference of an earthly Jesus.

Quote:

A) 1) silence in the Xtian epistolary literature

Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Quote:

A) 6) the existence of numerous direct references to Jesus-as-spirit in the Xtian writings

Yeah, plenty. Revelation ,Pauline epistles etc.

Quote:

A) 7) the existence of cults that treat Jesus as a mythical/spiritual savior figure

Proof of concept. You are spot on aka argument from analogy. Isis who was hanged on a nail and was dead for three days and raised from the dead. Osiris, Dionysus and other spiritual savious figures in line with the sublunar reincarnation theory.

Quote:

B) The Gospels were written as myth-only literature.

Virgin births, miracles, voices from heaven, rising from the dead etc. Nice stories.

Quote:

B) 2) the creation of the gospel narratives out of the OT prophecy texts.

Prophecy-fulfilled. You got that right. Matthew even copies Isaiah verbatim then proceeds to limn a story.

Quote:

B) 4) the attitude of the early Christians toward the texts they had

I am not so sure about this though. They sure show signs of liking good stories but I dont know if we can know how much they believed what they were told. Maybe they just liked listening ie were fascinated by the stories.

Quote:

B) 5) the fact that Jesus tracks the arc for archetypal heroes

Absolutely. There are many saviour figures.

Quote:

C) Josephus did not mention Jesus.

Nope (IMHO). But authenticity of Antiquities 20 is still contested.
It's my impression that more and more and more scholars are beginning to allow for a mythical Jesus. And lack of originality of the gospels.

Quote:

I'm sure that there's probably more to be added to this list, so perhaps someone else can chime in, or you (Vork) will think of more later. I consider this still to be in the exploratory or brainstorming stage, so I am not criticizing at the moment; I would like us to consider as much data as possible and we can refine it all later.

At this point, the arguments that challenge reliability of writings that mention a HJ are well established so I will not repeat them.

* Add peculiar context (argument from peculiarity)
* argument from context (hellenism and its consistencty with Christ Logos as opposed to Christ man) consider Plutarchs reading on On Isis and Osiris (written in the first century post Jewish war) and how he writes of Isis and Osiris (I am quoting the excerpt from Carriers review):
* argument from implausibility
* plausibility, explanatory power and scope of the mythicist hypothesis and so on.

Vorkosigan

Because there are cases of complete invention of fictive descriptions of real events based on earlier history and literature. Lots of them. Take the second half of Otto Friesling's book on Barbarossa. He died halfway through and his secretary finished by using Suetonius and other ancient historians for models. The events in the book actually occurred, but the story about them is largely fictional.

That is why I am a Jesus agnostic rather than a mythicist. Because all you can do is disprove the story. You can't prove fictionality of the tale it tells if you have no story. You can only prove it fictional if a reliable alternative account of the same events exists that irresolvably contradicts the suspect account in many places and fundamental ways. We don't have that. If we possessed Justus of Tiberias' account of Galilee, I suspect we would be able to prove the gospel Jesus a fiction in toto. But even then, that would not eliminate the possibility that the legends are based on a real story that happened at a much earlier time.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

This objection has been dismissed in this thread.

In PK's view we have A and B. ERarly Christian silence and the Gospels seem to protray a mythical figure.


So I was half correct when I said "The whole Jesus mythicism argument boils down to early xian silence." It boils down to silence and the Gospels looking like pure fiction. That's it? I'm not too disapointed though because I expected as much.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Hi Vinnie,

More important than the quantity is the quality of the arguments used. If the two classes of data indicated are secure and point very strongly to the conclusion, then we needn't bother with dubious arguments. Indeed it is a common scholarly failing to present as many arguments as imaginable, thus diluting the impact of the arguments that are actually worthwhile.

The silence of non-Christian historians has not been dismissed by me in this thread. If I were convinced that Josephus did not mention Jesus, that would be decent (if inconclusive) evidence against the historicity of Jesus. On the other hand, a mention in Josephus would be decent evidence in favor. That is probably why so many people in the debate have been attracted to the issue of Josephus, probably to the detriment of attention to the more central matters to be addressed concerning the Christian literature itself.

Reviewing the "Twelve Pieces of the Jesus Puzzle" presented by Doherty, I would expand my outline of the structure of the mythicist abductive argument as follows:

A) Early Christians held to a spirit-only Jesus.
A) [1] Jeus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.
A) [3] The early epistles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new "salvation" movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.
A) [4] Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.
A) [11] The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.
A) [12] Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.

B) The Gospels are pure fiction.
B) [8] All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.
B) [9] The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of "midrash," a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.
B) [10] "Q", a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have ahd no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

C) No first century historian mentions Jesus.
C) [2] There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.
C) Justus of Tiberias did not mention Jesus.

D) A heavenly divine intermediary Christ fits the cultural context.
D) [5] The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly conterparts to earthly things. Paul's Christ operates within this system.
D) [6] The pagan "mystery cults" of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history. Paul's Christ shares many features with these deities.
D) [7] The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul's heavenly Christ.

Obviously, if all this is true, if first century Christians didn't have any notion of an earthly Jesus, and if all the gospel accounts were intended to be read as fictions, then there would be a respectable case for a Jesus Myth hypothesis. I think you can recognize this, Vinnie, and state that you disagree with the way that the data are perceived, what the premises are, not suggest that the conclusion of the abductive argument is absurd.

Is this the extent of the case for a Jesus Myth hypothesis? Can anyone add to this list, or would someone disagree with the structure that I gave it? Can this be understood as the canonical mythicist argument, or is it a misrepresentation or under-representation? I'd like to know the thoughts of Michael, Toto, Quentin, and the others here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Vork, with all due respect, you are saying that the only way to falsify a story is by supplanting it with another story (like an alibi is used in criminal investigations). You are actually assuming that something did take place on earth - is that correct?

This, IMHO, is incorrect, and even if it were correct, Doherty has given us an alternative and more plausible story under ABE - a positive argument.

Do we have to prove fictionality of Robin Hoods tale by telling another story?
What about midrash? mimesis? do we have to have an actual alternative story?

I repeat Carriers postulate:
Is it realistic to expect "a reliable alternative account of the same events" given what we know about the cultural milieu under which Xstianity sprouted? We can only expect an alternative account if some of the events actually DID take place and (the crux of the matter is) how do we get to know that? What is the evidence that a man existed called Jesus and that its the same man written about in the Gospels?

Your statement assumes that some "events" (presumably in the Gospels) actually did take place what are these events? And it assumes that what we have actually tells us that that some events actually did take place although not exactly as narrated in them.

How would you assign reliability? - We have Canonical and apocryphal gospels/writings - do we do it the way the orthodox church did it?

In Irenaeus' Against Heresies for example, Basilides is claimed to have stated that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus: he did not believe Christ Jesus was crucified.

We have numerous documents that were forged under pseudo-Pauline epistles alone, we have "the Acts of Paul", "the Acts of Paul and Thecla", "the Prayer of the Apostle Paul", "the Apocalypse of Paul", "a third Epistle to the Corinthians" and "the Correspondance of Paul and Seneca".
We have so many contradicting stories and if we are to use plausibility as the guide, we will throw out all the Gospels and we will have no story.

So the question is; Why do we need a story about a historical Jesus while a spiritual Jesus can answer our questions? Why do you expect an actual "figure" at the core of these myths?
What about Doherty's thesis?

Iasion

Greetings Peter et al,

Actually,
I thought that was an excellent exposition of the Mythicist case, and covered the main points well.

In fact Peter, your open-minded comments and clear explanations recently leads me to wonder if you are wavering to the Mythicist view?


A few minor points that perhaps deserve inclusion in the MJ thesis summary :

Philo
I think the eponymous Philo of this thread deserves a specific, if minor, mention - sure, a minimalist HJ may not have come to Philo's attention but such a person would not be the "real Jesus" in my view. A maximalist (Gospel-like) HJ surely would have - a "medium-weight" HJ would probably have been noticed by Philo I think. Do we know how much time Philo spent in Jerusalem and when?

(On a side note - I am rather intrigued with the Embassy to Gaius - this was crazy Caligula right? Did Philo actually meet Gaius face to face and argue with him? What an incredible meeting that would have been, a mastermind versus a madman!)


Gospels
The early Christians tended to change and edit the Gospels (seemingly for religious reasons), suggesting they are not histories - this issue perhaps deserves its own point in the list.

Also, the lack of mention of the Gospels or their contents until a century after the alleged events perhaps deserves its own point - this issue is hidden by the usual dating of the Gospels to 70-100ish (if it was written c.70, why did no-one seem to know about it for another 50-60 years at least?)

Also remember those comments from someone a while ago about 150 years being how long it typically took for myth to supplant history? I note the Gospels crystalized just at the 150 year mark with Irenaeus.


(Oh, and thanks for your help with Greek - betacode to Unicode seems like the way to go.)

Iasion