Mythra

GAWDAMMIT! Now the A team shows up.

We coulda used you a couple days ago, AUB. Hope you'll be around more.

 

This is a major pain, with the lowing of standards in biblical criticism, anyone can get establishes as a “credible” scholar, and the field has been flooded with raving right wing fundy nutters, who have set back biblical criticism 500 years. The Jesus-brigade then point to this surge in Sunday school dating and interpretation as proof of their claims, (ad popularum), but the context of such a turn around clearly shows this is not in anyway genuinely damaging to the more honest scholarship that these theists are afraid of.

Great to see Rem is still remembering this place, it is so easy to get carried away in research and lose track of forums like this one. He is quite right, there is a lot of sloppy work in this field, Archarea S, Cersey Graves, and allot of it boils down to this eagerness to paste the gospel stories into earlier myths. The problem is this, the gospels are irrelevant as far as learning the truth of xtian origins is concerned, they are later embellishments, based on pagan sources for sure, but mostly just amateur Midrash of OT material. It is the pre-gospel xtianity, and its motifs that need to be subject to form criticism, Paul’s theology, his meta-physical paradigm, the dying and rising concept, not crucifixion, which is not as important as less sophisticated scholars think. The mystery cults and Platonic idealism is the primary sources for this, trying to find similar gospel motifs in other faiths is a red herring. Even if there were none we can still show the gospels to be later works of fiction, only adopted as history by a limited number of xtian schools, who just happened to engulf the rest later, who’s Jesus was neither historical nor in some cases even sacrificed.

 

Historically? Politics then momentum

Today? Mostly ignorance, which is why we have to be thorough in our research, buying everything Acharea S. writes makes us no better than the Lee Strobel swallowing theists. We can never stop searching, especially when we think we've found what we want, that is subjective and superficial, and how educated theists function.

I'm not looking for ways to destroy religion but simply the truth, it just happens that truth kills faith, and I like that.

Is there anything in particular previously touched upon on this thread that they'd like dealt with in greater detail?

 

Mythra

I'm going to take the position that the mythicists are wrong, for the sake of discussion. For now, I'll join lots of others on this site, who believe that there had to have been a historical person named Jesus at the beginning of all of this.

 

You mythicists talk about the authentic Pauline epistles...

 

(I respond to the entire post quoting verbatim)

 

ME

Try mainstream. Most archys are specialists and don’t want to kick up a fuss, but u put all the findings together as some braver scholars do and u have a slam dunk for minimalists, so much so that only the kooks stick to trying to prove the historicity of the bible. Truly terrible stuff, but the fundies lap it up

Mythra, Good Idea! I’ll deal with what you wrote, but first a brief outline of mythicism.

There are 2 kinds of cults, those founded on a leader’s personality, and those created from worship of pagan deities, and astrotheology. How does one tell the difference? Well cults of personality develop in a certain way, leaving traces of the initial personality on the earliest material. Mythic cults begin more abstract, and soon branch into multiple interpretations, mystery cults particularly, and those based on sun/son worship. What do we have with xtianity? Multiple cults of great variety from the earliest days, far more than the church admits, and the earliest writing are theological, with no trace of a founder’s personality, (Paul’s epistles). In short there could not have been a historical Jesus, the data flatly contradicts this, no way can a cult of personality leave such traces, the founder’s aspects are never so quickly obliterated, or then (as the un-historical nature of the gospels is beyond question) re-invented as a contradictory composite. The gospels are an attempt at historicising Jesus, as was the fashion at the time. Disproving the validity of the gospels is so easy that I won’t even bother here, the hard part is making the case that there could not have been any such founder, that there is no sliver of truth in the gospels many mythic motifs (as so many cling to), and explaining historicalisation.

A snobbish attitude developed among the philosophical schools along the lines that their founders and focus were historical (and often recent) figures whereas the cults and religions followed myths. This lead to various attempts to historicalise such mythic figures as Osiris, Dionysus, and especially Hercules (with some success, even today his fame is based on his “earthly” deeds and most don’t know he was worshiped as a full god for most of the ancient times. Every TV and movie adaptation always stops the story before he becomes a god, and never deal with afterwards, his earthly character being more compelling). This tendancy continues to this day, with the liberal position of jesus as a teacher, something many sun gods became, when such a figures were the rage. Both a god and a wandering sage, in “incarnate” mode. Certainly greater credibility in this century is more likely to be given to a faith founded by a “great teacher”, than sun worshippers, its good marketing, not the most likely explanation.

It was also common to slowly personify astral deities, and ideal example is Horus. First he was simply the sun, child of the land and sky, then these three were personified as Horus, Osirus, and Isis. Horus was given wings, as were most sky entities and gods (even YHWH), (the ancients understood wings as being the only obvious method of flight) this resulting in Horus becoming a bird, then as the humanistic Greeks spread their influence Horus was depicted as fully humanoid. This process was taken to full historicising for many other deities that were originally just as astral, (Samson, Moses, Enoch). So from solar deity to historical teacher was a common translation in the Greco-Roman world, there is plenty of precedence, but so few study the classical world. Ignorance of the mystery cults also deprives most of crucial context. How many here had even heard of them before looking into this?

Jesus is just such an abstract being at first, with traces going back as far as the pre-Socratic Hericlitus in 600 BCE who first postulated the Logos concept. It hard to visualise such a evolution today as astral worship is rare and we’ve been conditioned for so long to see Jesus as historical, but this was just a tactic to outdo the other mystery cults who worshiped Dionysus, Osiris etc. Most educated people long stopped believing in them. There was a push from the earliest days to recruit among the intelligentsia and nobles (or at least appear to be able to), Paul’s Pharisaic pretensions, Luke’s use of Josephus’s writing style to hide is hackery, etc. It was easier to historicalise Jesus as he was such a vague concept with no crude personifications up until then. (study the earliest depictions of him, no consistency at all, just copies of other pagan deities, the final “orthodox” image was the long product of trial and error). Another point is that people see Jesus’ historicity as likely given the abundance of similar figures at that time such as Apolonius of Tyan, and the false Messiahs, and philosphers. However they are looking at this on the wrong way, everyone knew of these people and were the inspirations for the Gospel writer’s project. In a sense Jesus was a fiction based on fact. But like the NT passages that appear to fulfil OT ones, what is reality going on is the the NT writers based their material on them. (they certainly could not have been ignorant of them before hand) People imagine the NT writers were in a vacuum, and were unaware of the historical precedence, and “prophecies”, this is naive in the extreme. Pointing to the similar life of Apolonius at the (alleged) exact same time does not show a reasonable basis for historicity, as the evidence shows the historical Jesus was created much later, when his story was long known, and could well be a source for Mark. (I personally put Mark at 135-145 CE) The historicists have to prove accounts of his historical existence go back to Apolonius’s time, (they can’t even show they go back to the 1st century).

So it is largely due to our cultural and temporal context that causes so many to take the historicist positon, I held it for a long time. But you have to think outside your context, especially regarding the Pauline Jesus. We have so little common experience with Platonic meta-physics, and so interpret the epistles’s description of Jesus Gospel wise, rather than philosophically. But the Gospels are a far later embellishment, not excepted by many xtian schools even in the middle of the second century. I suggest research to all those historicists here, there is so much data to back up mythicism, it just take a bit of digging. Your (understandable) gut rejection of this leads to warping of material; objectivity and thoroughness will makes things clearer.

Now onto mythra’s questions

Only a few mythicists credit Paul with creating xtianity, it is a straw man to imply otherwise. And for those that do, these are precicly the kind of passages that later scribes would need to interpolate in when a previous founder was created. Paul’s work is full of interpolations, (given how the theology later evolved, and the early nature of the material) so this is not so unlikely. (Mark is also full of them for similer reasons). But beyond that, the anachronisms that show interpolations are too numerous to mention, and there are plenty of resources that list them. You have to decide for yourself if these passages are among them, it has no baring on my personal position. Markan interpolations is my field.

There is certainly precedence of xtians invention of early persecuations, that go against all the facts. It may well be that the Jews harassed the early xtians, (though given their small numbers and obscurity this is unlikely) certainly the Pharisees disliked Hellenistic influences, (of course this would imply xtianity was a Greek cult from the very beginning, he he). The tendency to imagine or exaggerate persecutions and martyrdoms for propaganda and psychological manipulation may have started with Paul himself inventing such goings on. Certainly it got ridiculous when Judea was destroyed and the Jews were no longer in a position to persecute xtians, (if they ever did) and the pious (not to mention luridly sick) romancers had to claim the Romans were now doing it, despite the practice of religious tolerance and the fact that no one even noticed the xtians till the second century, let alone bothered them, (why would they?).

There’s another reason why such fantasy were propagated and that was to explain why the numbers of followers were so low even by the mid second century when the gospels and oral traditions speak of mass conversions, apostolic miracles, the great commission etc, (a fictional cull of the fictional numbers).

Even if this account of Paul and his doings was true, this makes no differance to either side of the debate. Pre Pauline xtians even though we have no material from them would hardly have been historical Jesus based, given Paul’s lack of reference to him, and clear mythic metaphysic.



Apostles, he said so himself, read the material properly, not with “Gospel coloured classes”. An apostle was just a preacher, there’s no implication in Paul’s mention of them that they had any more significant relation with Christ then he did, in fact he flatly denies they had anything worth while for him regarding Jesus. Turning them into disciples was a later idea, (the term appears along with the historical Jesus, not before) they could not do this with Paul, as he clearly was no disciple, but the other references were vague and could be more easily manipulated. (This sort of building up from brief references led to the idea of “Luke” writing a gospel) As for ”the lords brother” that is a hotly contested passage, and is in no way as clear-cut as you seem to think. Even if it wasn’t an interpolation "brother" may refer to a spiritual connection, (you xtians do do that you know), which was later literalised in the gospels, remember the Evangelists know these passages, and constructing their stories around them. They built up a great deal of extra biography to Paul himself that he never mentions, its just fictional extrapolations. Stop reading back into the material. Think outside the finalised NT box.





1. Even Calvin admited these writings are spurious. Bishopic propaganda.

2. The idea that Ignatius found the time to compose all these letters, (count them) while being transported to Rome (for no good reason) to be executed, (for no good reason) while he was being abused, defies belief. Bunk, so bunk I am under no obligation to even respond.

3. However, I will point out that he’s mentions a lot of “truly”s, why did he feel the need to so affirm? Also even if these were written in 110CE, (impossible, too many historical anachronisms) it is still the ranting of a believer to an event he did not witness, this proves nothing.

A pious frauder trying to get a more credible name to support his blind faith, when neither are qualified. Just like the Joe, Pliny, Suet, and Tacitus passages, even if they were real, (fat chance) they to do not in ANY way constitute first hand proof or testimony, that is hysterically obvious, and I find it amusing how theist still promote these. To be ignorant of the controversy if not outright debunking of the material is one thing, but why do they think people born after these alleged events, especially Joe are suitable witnesses? Can’t they read dates? I read one post by a fundy fruitcake recently, who was ranting on about how Josephus witnessed the crucifixion, and loved Jesus etc, what part of “born 37 CE” don’t they understand? Its depressing to watch the intellectual credibility of xtianity slip further behind the flat earthers. (I also find it amusing that this “ignatius” passage contains the most fundamental contradiction in the gospels, that of Jesus being of the Davidic line, yet also having god as a father)



Again the problem is you assume the official order of events or theological development. Yes real people get divinized, but just as many myths get historicalised, you have the order the wrong way round, built on wishful thinking, when a purely objective study of the facts shows otherwise, Earl Doherty’s model alone has far greater explanitory power than any other. That is what determines truth, not your subjective desires. Yes many of these elements are later embellishments, miracles, virgin birth etc, but many PRE DATE the gospel accounts, resurrection eucharist, etc, and the 12 and teacher aspects are later ideas, therefore not historical. You really need to acknowledge the correct order before you make such judgements. His death was from day one an atoning universal act, a roman cruxificiton is a common event, but you cannot point to this particular thing just because it’s not supersitious fantasy when in this case its just a more down to earth version of a mythic event. There mere many crucifixions true and its not asking much to except a certain person may have died this way, (ordinary claims only require ordinary proof), but the Jesus sacrifice is part of a tradition of mystery cult motifs, retold to sound probable, but the retelling cannot be true, no matter how rational or historically valid when the origins are fictional.

Our paradigm is based on all the evidence, yours ignores most of it, and excepts a priori far too much of the traditional understanding, can u account for our findings better? Your only hope is to refute the case we have already made, not bring out this tired old trash. Deal with our findings not throw up out moded objections. These are things your own side faked long ago to deal with our intellectual predecessors, it failed to convince them, and only through oppression was your view excepted, now we have even more on yo. Go through Earl Doherty’s work, or Robert Price’s, (you clearly haven’t) your first volley is long deflected, ours has still to be even acknowledged. If the mythicist case is so absurd, take it apart, why is Earl Doherty unrefuted? Why as his superior case not been met with an even more superior one? One that accounts for all the findings even better? All you have done it show “proofs” that have most likely been dealt with in the case we made, you attempt to refute our case with what we refuted in our case. Just like the line “God did it” your “proofs” explain nothing, they are simply stealth demands for blind faith.

My forward already dealt with the teacher motif being a popular embellishment, and the 12 followers have so many astronomical and OT precedents that it’s as likely they are as fictional as the virgin birth. No matter what aspects you pull out of the gospels, even the seemingly most probable ones, you will find pagan or OT precedence. Besides the pagan motifs are the least important aspect of mythicism, the NT being midrash on OT is the most damning evidence.
You want Jesus to be historical, even though you have no reason to think he is, so you pick the bits you think you can make the best case for, but each era and group have their own most likely, or moral, or popular part of the patchwork gospels. There’s something for everybody, however you cannot show your favoured passages or motifs are anymore historical than any other. They are all equal, and “probable” or “realistic” is relative, and highly open to question. Why do the realistic parts have to be historical, why can’t they be taken from historical cases, like the mythic elements were take from other myths, given the excessive plagiarism of the Evangelists, doesn’t this seem more likely?

Your like a man who in 2000 years time finds a copy of Harry Potter, and so likes the main hero, that he decides that, being “rational” he cannot possibly believe it all, or convince other it is so. Therefore he concludes that the parts about magic and dragons are obvious embellishments, but there really was a boy call Harry, and a school called Hogwarts. Afterall, what else could have been the basis for the story and its many fans? I’m sure JKR based Harry and co on kids she knew, and Hogwarts on real schools, (most of my fantasy fiction is based on people i’ve met) no work of fiction is totally fiction, but a dash of realism added to characters or setting via some real examples does not a factual account make. A work of fiction contains a mix of probable and improbable, you cannot pick and choose with no good reason. Without independent confirmation your rationalising of the gospels is worthless, and as I’ve previously demonstrated, such evidence is something you are utterly incapable of producing.

Hows that?





Earl Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle goes into the best full on mythicist theory, his site is excellent, and contains most of his case,

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Robert M Price's two main books on this our Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible shrinking Son of Man, both give the best balanced account of the sceptical and critical position.

As for raw data,

The Christ

This is the complete The Christ by John E Remsberg, it catalogues the lot, as was known then, a bit out of date but thorough.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/

This site is run by a friend of mine, and has the best account of the Josephus/Luke connection there is.

And to start you off, of course it has to be Brian’s doc. (looking forward to the movie) This guy’s done more to get mythicism into the mainstream than anyone.

God Movie


I also think this book is a good start.

Mysteries


+Plus I have my own mythicist section, under development.

http://www.humanism.me.uk/essays/Mythicism.htm

There are plenty of good books that detail the real findings, we don’t get any biblical archeology junk here, so its easier to find the facts. It’s been so long since I did the OT I’ve forgotten most of the sources I used. This should be reliable.

http://www.imj.org.il/eng/archaeology/

I can sketch it out quite simply however.

There is no confirmation of any event in the OT or NT.

The Jews were indigenous cannanites who amalgamated the gods and myths from various tribes, and re-wrote their history before during and after the Babylonian exile, turning gods into prophets, myths into history and inventing the Exodus, Conquest, etc, all the archaeology backs this up.

Also there is http://www.jesusneverexisted.com site, which happens to have a lengthy section comparing the OT legends to the archaeological evidence, this should be precisely what u are after.

Chronological Index

I recommend all go though this.