The Jesus myth Part I

[Manetho]

They also, apparently destroyed or changed texts that didn't favor their beliefs, or the story they wished told. That's a pretty sad situation too, if we want to reconstruct the history.

That's much less of a factor than people often assume. The Christian texts that ended up being condemned as heretical by proto-orthodox Christians were not, to my knowledge, actively destroyed by the proto-orthodox, at least not in any systematic way. The sects that considered those texts authoritative simply died out.

Ok. So there's no good evidence. I don't think that argues for his historicity. That simply suggests if we assume he lived then it's possible to explain there is a lack of evidence for him having lived. I mean fine, but that's not addressing the data.

But there is evidence that he lived. You just keep setting the bar unreasonably high.

Paul treats Jesus as a human messiah who got executed and says he knew the people who knew Jesus, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter. Mark, the gospel closest to Jesus's own time, treats Jesus as a messiah and faith healer who had a bunch of followers, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter, and who ended up getting executed. Josephus treats him as a messiah claimant whose brother James got executed. As disparate as they are, those sources all point to a human messiah claimant who had a group of followers, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter, who ended up getting executed.

Each of those three sources reinforces each other on those basic points. They can't be considered in isolation, but in our last go-round on this topic, it became clear that you (and Carrier) do consider them in isolation. Carrier constructs an alternate explanation for each source: Paul's references to Jesus as a human don't mean what they seem to mean, the gospels are based on some entirely conjectural tradition about a mythic Jesus that isn't so clearly set in a specific time and place on Earth, Josephus's account of James's execution isn't actually about Jesus's brother because of a complex scribal error. But even if one assumes that those individual explanations are as plausible as the mainstream one — it should be obvious that I don't think they are, but we'll leave that aside — the three pieces of evidence together make more sense as the result of a real Jesus's life and execution.

Jesus mythicism fails Occam's Razor.

[dastardly stem]

That's much less of a factor than people often assume. The Christian texts that ended up being condemned as heretical by proto-orthodox Christians were not, to my knowledge, actively destroyed by the proto-orthodox, at least not in any systematic way. The sects that considered them authoritative

And "destroyed" is likely the wrong word people use. Its more like in time they lost favor as a certain christian sect gained legitimacy. But it appears some were actively destroyed too.

But there is evidence that he lived. You just keep setting the bar unreasonably high.

I don't think so, but happy to hear it.

Paul treats Jesus as a human messiah who got executed and says he knew the people who knew Jesus, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter.

I disagree. Paul treats Jesus as a cosmic god who did not leave teachings and never met anyone. He only speaks of the gospel coming to him by revelation or through jewish scriptural sources, not through anyone who could have met Jesus. And he doesn't say Peter knew Jesus as another human. And the passing comment that James was the brother of Jesus could as easily be seen as a reference to a brother in the gospel rather than a biological brother. So I'm not seeing as reference as all that convincing or definable.

Mark, the gospel closest to Jesus's own time, treats Jesus as a messiah and faith healer who had a bunch of followers, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter, and who ended up getting executed.

But Mark's author never claims to know Jesus nor any of his in life followers. And Mark is a fanatical believer attempting to tell a story of Jesus having lived long afterward. I don't think it amounts to evidence that Jesus really lived, or at least not good or convincing evidence. Mark's gospel could have been written for a mythical figure as well as for a historic person.

Josephus treats him as a messiah claimant whose brother James got executed. As disparate as they are, those sources all point to a human messiah claimant who had a group of followers, including his brother James and a guy known as Peter, who ended up getting executed.

Where would Josephus had heard that there was a James with a brother Jesus who later was called the Christ other than from other believers, like Paul? And why would Josephus, if hearing the line "James the brother of Jesus" think that meant the Christians treated each other as brothers, as they saw the Lord brethren with believers? That is not a clear piece of evidence at all. And as it turns out, the mention of him being the Christ in Josephus, seems like a later interpolation. So, some suggest, if there was a Joshua who had a brother Jesus, it need not be the Christian twosome. Indeed that which is said of James in Josephus doesn't quite match.

Each of those three sources reinforces each other on those basic points. They can't be considered in isolation, but in our last go-round on this topic, it became clear that you (and Carrier) do consider them in isolation.

I don't see any reinforcing going on. I think it's a string of assumptions in order to force upon us the notion that Jesus lived historically. I'm not exactly opposed to that, but I am suggesting that doesn't make a good case for historicity.

[/quote]Carrier constructs an alternate explanation for each source: Paul's references to Jesus as a human don't mean what they seem to mean, the gospels are based on some entirely conjectural tradition about a mythic Jesus that isn't so clearly set in a specific time and place on Earth, Josephus's account of James's execution isn't actually about Jesus's brother because of a complex scribal error. But even if one assumes that those individual explanations are as plausible as the mainstream one — it should be obvious that I don't think they are, but we'll leave that aside — the three pieces of evidence together make more sense as the result of a real Jesus's life and execution.

Jesus mythicism fails Occam's Razor.
[/quote]

I don't think so. And I think there is tons to add to the story in order to really consider mythicism vs historicism. So I'll try and get back to it in the coming days.

[huckelberry]

Huckelberry, I don't know how to take this. If anyone read the list with skepticism, then no one is going to be on the list. But, I"m happy to respond to your points for now.

I could review this list again. For some of these there is room for different takes depending upon how high the desire to find matches is.
1 yes
2 there is no public acknowledged way he is royal. He is an ordinary guy whose neighbors know him andtreat him as ordinary..

Why does the criteria get added to it that he must be publicly acknowledged to be from royal descent? We can see this in two ways. Joseph is said to have lineage from king David, thus royal descent, or his real daddy (God above) is as royal as humans can get, I'd say. I'm not sure why anyone should take this as a "if we can cynically say it doesn't match perfectly then we can deny that it is check mark, per meeting the criteria". That would never work.

3no , i find no stories about his conception, no swan golden shower or whatever.

His conception is said to have involved God. That's not unusual?


7 not particularly foster
I don't understand this comment. Foster means bring up a child that is not biologically yours. Was it said that Joseph was his actual biological father?


9 no he grew up in Israel and was never king of Israel except as a Roman joke.

What is his kingdom? You seem to be saying since it was said that they mocked him as king of the Jews at his death that the stories about him did not really say he was king of the jews. I mean what was the joke? That he wasn't really king of anything. If nothing else he was crowned king in heaven, no?

did his thousands of supporters go? Are you saying them going silent, or switching sides (?) is gaining favor?

14 no , there was no throne no city . he was an itinerant preacher.

Stem, I think part of the reason we see the matches differently is I am making a distinction between story elements linking to mythical storytelling and realistic human situations. You mention that Mary being a virgin would mean there was something unusual in the conception. That would be arbitrarily making two points out of the first, padding the count, unless like normal mythical stories there actually is a story about the conception. (such as swans) but Jesus story has none it does match that added mythical element. It is in that same spirit that I point out that the presented story of Jesus life does not include him being the king of anything. Much later Christians might like the title Christ the King. I have never heard of Jesus being crowned in heaven that would be gilding the lily or a step down from his actual position.

Part of what might be seen in this list and our different view of it is that I think there is reflected a story of Jesus which is natural and does not fit the mythic list but there are additions which reflect later beliefs about Jesus and those later reflections start fitting closer to elements in the list. Virgin birth, Davidic ancestry, Herod trying to kill him as a baby because of special warnings, going to Egypt these fit the types of mythic storytelling . Going about preaching and collecting some followers, criticising authorities and customs, making some theatrical demonstrations like cleansing the temple, getting in trouble with temple authorities, being executed as trouble maker by Roman authorities all sound like regular real human story pieces. There are things in the middle like healing which are not on your list.Apocalyptic prophet isn't either.

That part , apocalyptic prophet might be the elephant in the discussion room.

The list is like a bed a few part of Jesus fit into but for which the whole Jesus would have to be chopped twisted and pressured to fit into.
..........
Adding an afterthought. I have not heard the child of a persons spouse referred to as foster child. Especially when there is no third parent.

[MG 2.0]

Joseph Smith said something along the lines of Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world. Now, I'll proceed saying this is a Mormon issue, even though we all know it extends far beyond that tiny backwater provincial...ok world religion.

I've done some more homework. last time I brought this up it was clear there was much more to learn on the matter. I won't deny that I have a ways to go still. But I'm feeling ready to continue my journey into the unknown, ready to put it out there so any willing party can defeat the weakness of my position, and I can tuck tail in humility and cower as I recoil into my own mix of insecure assemblies.

“Ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Timothy 3:7

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I think part of the reason we see the matches differently is I am making a distinction between story elements linking to mythical storytelling and realistic human situations. You mention that Mary being a virgin would mean there was something unusual in the conception. That would be arbitrarily making two points out of the first, padding the count, unless like normal mythical stories there actually is a story about the conception.

I am not following. I didn't suggest there was something unusual about the conception, not because she was a virgin but because it involved God. That's 2 separate points.

(such as swans) but Jesus story has none it does match that added mythical element. It is in that same spirit that I point out that the presented story of Jesus life does not include him being the king of anything. Much later Christians might like the title Christ the King. I have never heard of Jesus being crowned in heaven that would be gilding the lily or a step down from his actual position.

When Jesus was said to have spoken about his father's kingdom what does that mean to you? For instance, in Matthew he says, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." If there is no such royalty illuminated there, what do you make of the kingdom of heaven, or other such talk?

Part of what might be seen in this list and our different view of it is that I think there is reflected a story of Jesus which is natural and does not fit the mythic list but there are additions which reflect later beliefs about Jesus and those later reflections start fitting closer to elements in the list. Virgin birth, Davidic ancestry, Herod trying to kill him as a baby because of special warnings, going to Egypt these fit the types of mythic storytelling . Going about preaching and collecting some followers, criticising authorities and customs, making some theatrical demonstrations like cleansing the temple, getting in trouble with temple authorities, being executed as trouble maker by Roman authorities all sound like regular real human story pieces. There are things in the middle like healing which are not on your list.Apocalyptic prophet isn't either.

They aren't. You are right.

That part , apocalyptic prophet might be the elephant in the discussion room.

Why?

The list is like a bed a few part of Jesus fit into but for which the whole Jesus would have to be chopped twisted and pressured to fit into.
..........
Adding an afterthought. I have not heard the child of a persons spouse referred to as foster child. Especially when there is no third parent.

Ok. Thanks again.

[Dr Moore]

Joseph Smith said something along the lines of Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world. Now, I'll proceed saying this is a Mormon issue, even though we all know it extends far beyond that tiny backwater provincial...ok world religion.

I've done some more homework. last time I brought this up it was clear there was much more to learn on the matter. I won't deny that I have a ways to go still. But I'm feeling ready to continue my journey into the unknown, ready to put it out there so any willing party can defeat the weakness of my position, and I can tuck tail in humility and cower as I recoil into my own mix of insecure assemblies.

“Ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Timothy 3:7

Regards,
MG

Once again, you'll read a few sentences, skip 10 pages of discussion, and jump right to a sanctimonious judgment on some out of context sentence. Adds nothing to the discussion. Is insulting to people engaged in good faith dialogue. So I'll return the favor and skip reading your comments as well from now on. Enjoy the board.

[dastardly stem]

“Ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Timothy 3:7

Regards,
MG

This should be my theme. thanks.

Any input on the topic? Or here to condemn, refuse to answer questions, nor engage the topic?

Welcome back. Hopefully your "2.0" addition means you've come to turn over a new leaf?

[MG 2.0]

“Ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Timothy 3:7

Regards,
MG

This should be my theme. thanks.

Any input on the topic? Or here to condemn, refuse to answer questions, nor engage the topic?

Welcome back. Hopefully your "2.0" addition means you've come to turn over a new leaf?

Why waste breath when things can be wrapped up in a nutshell?

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Why waste breath when things can be wrapped up in a nutshell?

Regards,
MG

If you have no desire to participate then please don't waste time telling us that. You can simply not participate. We'll get it.

[huckelberry]

Stem, Simple way to see the question is what is an apocalyptic prophet doing walking around in a mystical hero story?

Historical Jesus studies have for couple hundred years now found the apocalyptic prophet material to a central problem, helpful or a hindrance. If the story is fiction what is this old stump doing in the middle of the story?

I am out of time and energy for the subject today but I expect I will return again.