The Jesus myth Part I

[dastardly stem]

Why do they? They just had a story of a person who actually lived, and the story was embellished by people who had a certain point to make about that person. Just as the people who claimed Apollo was the father of Augustus had a certain point to make in adding that to his story. It took no extra effort to tell the story of the man who lived a certain life using the facts they had at hand.

Well, neither side except for Robert M. Price, the mythicist who dates everything late. And there is also the problem of dating papyri.

Look, Symmachus clearly explained this. Ancient writers weren't familiar with the standards of evidence that modern readers are looking for. They gave evidence without a thought because those data points were simply part of the story they were telling. Ergo, they were not capable of thinking, "I better stick in some juicy fact so that my readers will buy this story." That is what Symmachus is getting at, and he is correct. He is brilliant, in fact.

What he is saying is that conditions in the second century changed such that it is unlikely the story would have originated that late. And some people do date some of the gospels in the second century.

Since he was off on his straw man I don't know how to take his comments as if we should treat them similarly on a first century authorship of the gospels.

But, I'd point out, if his theory holds--the notion that those unfamiliar with Jerusalem and it's workings with the Roman government, the nuances of jewish sects, the synoptic problem (i'd question why he'd include this as it doesn't seem to pertain at all?) then it would also apply to an author who is writing 2,500 miles away, like Mark is. That is, how could Mark, or whoever wrote that, would know about those things if he's living a whole world away from where the story is set? If in time an author couldn't get those things right, then distance may also apply. But then this problem isn't just for mythicists (and I'd say it never was an exclusive mythicist problem), its for the mainstream view of Jesus lived but was mythologized. And if so, then that argument would likely put someone further out on the fringe then Carrier is.

Of course one effort by Matthew's gospel was to correct that which Mark seemed to get wrong. So there is that. But then Matthew's gospel too was written in a different land. his point gets a bit complicated and I'm not sure how to take it given all parameters. If he were here and argued not against a straw man but against the real position, it'd be interesting to see what he'd say.

[dastardly stem]

Focusing the discussion on one item in the hopes it helps.

Why? I mean it all happened. Why must someone else have done exactly what the early Christians did before we can say it really happened?

What you are comparing here are two competing theories. One is the theory that Jesus was a historic person whose story was mythologized into his being a god, or the son of god, within the lifetimes of the people who may have known him. The other is the theory that someone or a group of someones invented the story of this divine, cosmic being set in a near-present timeframe, and then reworked the story to be more grounded with this being eventually becoming a historic person rather than always a cosmic entity.

Of the two theories, one has parallels from that time and place while the other would be novel.

I think they both have parallels to some extent and both are novel in other respects. As has been pointed out, for instance, Alexander was mythologized and divinized too. As were many characters that most to all agree had no historicity.

Of the two theories, one aligns with the chronology of evolution found in the authorship of the texts about this person while the other runs opposite this chronology (Mark = most mundane, John = Jesus is the Word).

I'm not so sure on this. If Mark starts the mythologizing and John completes it, such could happen whether there was a person named Jesus who started a new religion, gained a following and upset the authorities or not. In essence I don't agree we'd expect to see the least mundane first on either hypothesis. Legends grow. It seems quite apparent, for instance, Matthew has no problem attempting to enhance Mark. Meaning Matthew didn't fear any changes or additions he made when he copied much of Mark was going to be a problem. Neither seemed concerned that there was anyone to dispute the myth. Then came Luke and John switching things up. That doesn't work well on a historicist position, because people who cared who paid attention would notice and want to see things corrected. But since it was all magical and myth to energize and buttress religion, it doesn't seem to matter.

The first is what one would expect if one found later believers worked to eliminate earthly aspects of this person's life from the text (removing references to Jesus being part of a biological family unit whose mother gave birth to other children) while the later would demand ignoring that this occured, assuming the same position as these late copyists that Jesus couldn't have a family because Mary remained a virgin her whole life and Jesus was part of a Holy Family rather than a biological one. The difference being what we have then must be a sloppy attempt to slip them into the story later on rather than a marginal scrub job.

Etc, etc, etc.

At some point one of these two theories stops being of equal weight compared to the other.

I think your last sentence is correct. And the weight, as it gets evaluated, heavily favors mythicism. I'd like the chance to evaluate if we should take this seriously or not. In my mind we'd have a huge hill to climb, as we haven't even gotten started, being hung up on peripheral things so far.

[honorentheos]

Stem,

Citizen Cane.

- KITH

[Res Ipsa]

Why do they? They just had a story of a person who actually lived, and the story was embellished by people who had a certain point to make about that person. Just as the people who claimed Apollo was the father of Augustus had a certain point to make in adding that to his story. It took no extra effort to tell the story of the man who lived a certain life using the facts they had at hand.

Well, neither side except for Robert M. Price, the mythicist who dates everything late. And there is also the problem of dating papyri.

Look, Symmachus clearly explained this. Ancient writers weren't familiar with the standards of evidence that modern readers are looking for. They gave evidence without a thought because those data points were simply part of the story they were telling. Ergo, they were not capable of thinking, "I better stick in some juicy fact so that my readers will buy this story." That is what Symmachus is getting at, and he is correct. He is brilliant, in fact.

What he is saying is that conditions in the second century changed such that it is unlikely the story would have originated that late. And some people do date some of the gospels in the second century.

Since he was off on his straw man I don't know how to take his comments as if we should treat them similarly on a first century authorship of the gospels.

But, I'd point out, if his theory holds--the notion that those unfamiliar with Jerusalem and it's workings with the Roman government, the nuances of jewish sects, the synoptic problem (i'd question why he'd include this as it doesn't seem to pertain at all?) then it would also apply to an author who is writing 2,500 miles away, like Mark is. That is, how could Mark, or whoever wrote that, would know about those things if he's living a whole world away from where the story is set? If in time an author couldn't get those things right, then distance may also apply. But then this problem isn't just for mythicists (and I'd say it never was an exclusive mythicist problem), its for the mainstream view of Jesus lived but was mythologized. And if so, then that argument would likely put someone further out on the fringe then Carrier is.

Of course one effort by Matthew's gospel was to correct that which Mark seemed to get wrong. So there is that. But then Matthew's gospel too was written in a different land. his point gets a bit complicated and I'm not sure how to take it given all parameters. If he were here and argued not against a straw man but against the real position, it'd be interesting to see what he'd say.

Stem, I'm in favor of treating mythicism as a hypothesis worth examining. But it almost sounds as if you are thinking of mythicism as a default position. I'm not sure that's the best way to get to the right answer. My normal stance is to not assume the existence of anything without evidence of it's existence. And it I applied it here, I would place the burden of proof on those proposing real guy Jesus.

But it strikes me that this is different. We have a figure presented as a real person in old documents. So the question is, based on the explanation, what is the most likely explanation for how this person came to be? And we have two competing hypotheses: a God crucified in heaven who was changed into a man-God or a real person who was mythologized into a man-God. I don't think either one of these can be treated as a default position. So, it's not enough to offer alternative versions of something Paul said or Josephus recorded. The question is whether the evidence we have is more consistent with a mythologized real guy Jesus or a God crucified in heaven turned into a man.

[Manetho]

That is, how could Mark, or whoever wrote that, would know about those things if he's living a whole world away from where the story is set? If in time an author couldn't get those things right, then distance may also apply. But then this problem isn't just for mythicists (and I'd say it never was an exclusive mythicist problem), its for the mainstream view of Jesus lived but was mythologized. And if so, then that argument would likely put someone further out on the fringe then Carrier is.

You keep saying this, and it honestly makes no sense. If the story actually happened, then genuinely accurate details would survive as the story got passed from one person to another. The story would grow less accurate as it went along, which is the exact pattern we see when moving from the earlier to the later gospels. (The one significant improvement we see is when the author of Matthew omits Mark's errors about Jewish practice, which is presumed to have happened because the author of Matthew was Jewish and knew how Judaism was practiced in his own time; he didn't have to do research into Jesus's time to know that the text of Mark got it wrong.)

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I'm in favor of treating mythicism as a hypothesis worth examining. But it almost sounds as if you are thinking of mythicism as a default position. I'm not sure that's the best way to get to the right answer. My normal stance is to not assume the existence of anything without evidence of it's existence. And it I applied it here, I would place the burden of proof on those proposing real guy Jesus.

But it strikes me that this is different. We have a figure presented as a real person in old documents. So the question is, based on the explanation, what is the most likely explanation for how this person came to be? And we have two competing hypotheses: a God crucified in heaven who was changed into a man-God or a real person who was mythologized into a man-God. I don't think either one of these can be treated as a default position. So, it's not enough to offer alternative versions of something Paul said or Josephus recorded. The question is whether the evidence we have is more consistent with a mythologized real guy Jesus or a God crucified in heaven turned into a man.

Excellent, Res Ipsa. I appreciate this greatly. I need to figure out how to focus my own participation here so we're sticking to the question rather than arguing as if defending a position. I'm going to really try to fix that.

[dastardly stem]

You keep saying this, and it honestly makes no sense. If the story actually happened, then genuinely accurate details would survive as the story got passed from one person to another. The story would grow less accurate as it went along, which is the exact pattern we see when moving from the earlier to the later gospels. (The one significant improvement we see is when the author of Matthew omits Mark's errors about Jewish practice, which is presumed to have happened because the author of Matthew was Jewish and knew how Judaism was practiced in his own time; he didn't have to do research into Jesus's time to know that the text of Mark got it wrong.)

THanks for the post, Manetho. I tend to think your position here is treating, too much, the gospels as if they were written independently of each other. But, in each case they seem to be in consideration of the previous one(s) written. That suggests to me, no matter if Jesus lived or not, the myth grew. That is, this consideration--that the gospels were written in a place and context other than the purported setting written about--doesn't give us, at least as I see it, any reason to think one hypothesis is more likely than the other. It's just as likely the story came out, as it did, whether there was a real Jesus who lived on earth, or a mythic Jesus.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, I'm in favor of treating mythicism as a hypothesis worth examining. But it almost sounds as if you are thinking of mythicism as a default position. I'm not sure that's the best way to get to the right answer. My normal stance is to not assume the existence of anything without evidence of it's existence. And it I applied it here, I would place the burden of proof on those proposing real guy Jesus.

But it strikes me that this is different. We have a figure presented as a real person in old documents. So the question is, based on the explanation, what is the most likely explanation for how this person came to be? And we have two competing hypotheses: a God crucified in heaven who was changed into a man-God or a real person who was mythologized into a man-God. I don't think either one of these can be treated as a default position. So, it's not enough to offer alternative versions of something Paul said or Josephus recorded. The question is whether the evidence we have is more consistent with a mythologized real guy Jesus or a God crucified in heaven turned into a man.

Excellent, Res Ipsa. I appreciate this greatly. I need to figure out how to focus my own participation here so we're sticking to the question rather than arguing as if defending a position. I'm going to really try to fix that.

You're welcome. It's really hard not to defend a position, so maybe we can just keep each other honest as best we can.

[Kishkumen]

Since he was off on his straw man I don't know how to take his comments as if we should treat them similarly on a first century authorship of the gospels.

Symmachus was not off on a straw man. Symmachus is talking about the mindset of ancient authors, which applies just as easily to both centuries. If he was mistaken about Carrier thinking second century authorship, that was probably because, as I have already mentioned, other mythicists do take that position. In any case, his point still stands.

But, I'd point out, if his theory holds--the notion that those unfamiliar with Jerusalem and it's workings with the Roman government, the nuances of jewish sects, the synoptic problem (i'd question why he'd include this as it doesn't seem to pertain at all?) then it would also apply to an author who is writing 2,500 miles away, like Mark is. That is, how could Mark, or whoever wrote that, would know about those things if he's living a whole world away from where the story is set? If in time an author couldn't get those things right, then distance may also apply. But then this problem isn't just for mythicists (and I'd say it never was an exclusive mythicist problem), its for the mainstream view of Jesus lived but was mythologized. And if so, then that argument would likely put someone further out on the fringe then Carrier is.

You've lost me, stem. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Gospel of Mark gets the basics fairly well. The part about writing it 2,500 miles away means you are adopting the position of Roman authorship of Mark? I wish you would spend a little time unpacking your position. As someone who knows something about all of the principal people and issues involved, I find what Symmachus wrote to be perfectly lucid and persuasive. Whatever you are trying to say in rebuttal is, on the other hand, almost incomprehensible. I would appreciate you taking some time to unpack what you have written.

[dastardly stem]

Symmachus was not off on a straw man. Symmachus is talking about the mindset of ancient authors, which applies just as easily to both centuries. If he was mistaken about Carrier thinking second century authorship, that was probably because, as I have already mentioned, other mythicists do take that position. In any case, his point still stands.


You've lost me, stem. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Gospel of Mark gets the basics fairly well. The part about writing it 2,500 miles away means you are adopting the position of Roman authorship of Mark? I wish you would spend a little time unpacking your position. As someone who knows something about all of the principal people and issues involved, I find what Symmachus wrote to be perfectly lucid and persuasive. Whatever you are trying to say in rebuttal is, on the other hand, almost incomprehensible. I would appreciate you taking some time to unpack what you have written.

I want to get back on track. But I do want to clarify a bit here. Thanks for this post, Kish.

I took Symmachus' position, in part, to suggest someone arguing that a myth written in the second century that includes so many unique things from the first would have to necessarily be beyond reason in that no one was really equipped to do that, since the time difference, and subsequent cultural changes and upheavals for the matter, would have put someone in the second century too far removed from it's context. Not only that but it's unlikely that any author writing myth in the second century would intend to put in nuances which in the end would verify, to some extent, that the story could possibly fit in history. I don't know if I said that well, but that's basically how I took his point. If so, I don't know that we can safely say his point works if we take the gospels being written in the first century. His whole point was a strawman on Carrier's position. If he could also suggest that myth could not possibly be written in the first century and get some things correct, then what we'd be left with is something other than myth. And we're not seriously considering a mythical Jesus vs a real god-man named Jesus-who-did-miracles-and-was-resurrected position here. We're considering whether the mythicist position fits the data or if the mythologizing of a itinerant preacher fits the data better.

My point in which I lost you would take his argument and apply it to an idea if someone who wrote the gospels wrote it in a foreign land. As I understand it, Mark was written, the majority suggest, in Rome. If so, can we consider Symmachus' point and apply it to distance, rather than time? That is someone arguing that a myth written in a distant land that includes so many unique things from the land in question would have to necessarily be beyond reason in that no one was really equipped to do that, since the difference, and subsequent cultural differences, would have put someone in this distant land too far removed from it's context.

I don't know. But I also don't know that we can safely apply his point about differences between 2nd and 1st century to just 1st century. I'm still trying to figure out if your contention of there's no way, or it's improbable to whatever extent, really works. I don't see good reason on that. If someone created a myth about another person, they could very well include, even without trying real hard, some elements evidencing some level of accuracy about the time in place in question. If I create a story about an Agbittle, as being a god, and say he was executed by Hitler, I could easily include, without much focused effort, many elements that some people centuries later might recognize as fitting into the context of Hitler's Germany. But I'm far removed from Hitler's Germany in time and space. I'm simply not seeing much of an issue here.

With that, I'm happy to agree to disagree for now, or table this, in order to move on.