The Historical Jesus Question
A journey into mythicism.
The following is a condensed outline of my conclusions thus far after on a recent study of the mythicist position. I've found it to be the most exciting and promising area of biblical criticism and freethought. It's compiled from three separate web threads so I use three pages in case they are added to. Although mythicism is not accepted my the majority of scholars and historians this tends to be due either to theistic influence or a vested interest in a assumption of historicity. It has by far more reason and empiricism behind it than any alternative, and has yet to be seriously challanged, one to keep an eye on.
(It begins with a theist (Triv) posting the usual list of independent "sources" for the gospel Jesus, all of which are so discredited it hardly needs a rebuttal here.)
Triv
What about these?
Tacitus (AD 55-120) - Annals
Suetonius (AD 120) - Life of Claudius
Josephus (AD 37 - 97) - Antiquities
Pliny the Younger (AD 112) - Epistles X
Thallus (AD 52) - Histories
Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73)
Phlegon (AD 80)
and more
All nonchristian, all talk about Jesus.
Here are some things mentioned in these writings:
1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
2. He was a wise and provocative teacher.
3. He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims.
4. His followers believed that he had risen from the dead.
plus more of course
Again, that was not my question. I want to know how Jesus became legendary.
ME
As these "secular" sources are either irrelevant or bunk, all these xtians have for the claim of a historical Jesus is the gospels, as the epistles are too vague for anything approaching proof. If the gospels are bunk, then there is no question of the fictional nature of Jesus, and debunking the Gospels is so easy that no xtian can read the following material and keep their faith, let alone the absurd claim that Jesus wasn’t as mythical as Krishna or Zeus. There is no difference, yet even atheist and Jews assume his historicity, but only due to the careful campaigning of the churches since the second century that resulted in his historicity being taken for granted, a foundation for proselytisers to build on. Its a conversion tactic and nothing more, Jesus belongs with Hercules and Osiris, only their historicists weren’t as successful. That myth could be reinvented as history is well documented, though unknown to most, as it is the key to understanding what Jesus is. Most cannot imagine such a scenario, which is precisely what the churches want.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/FlavianT.htm
("scepticjoe" offers some thoughts, four sentences grab me)
QUOTE
(Some atheists claim that Jesus didn't exist at all. They may be right. I speculate he did exist. The simplest explanation of the Jesus myth is that Christians deified a dead leader. People were always deifying dead leaders in those days.)
ME
This was my opinion for a long time, as it does seem simple, however you have to base your position on evidence, not what "makes sense" as that may be a fault of your thinking. The issue of jesus's historicity is my main project right now, and the primary reason that he could not have been a deified martyred leader (even though this was very common practice) is because this was a "post-modern" religion. Not one based on a real leader, deified by fanatical followers in denial, but based on other cults founded by a real leader, deified by fanatical followers etc. Paul (or whoever) just skipped the whole martyred leader bit (maybe because he'd probably have to do it himself) and just combined previous ones, as there was so many, and created that weird amalgamated theology, that even today puzzles Jews and rationalists as to how such a mixture could have arisen. But one thing is clear, the theology came first, then the "history" as this is what both the empirical and theological data tells us.
The historical illusion is generated by the gospels, and is a hard habit to drop, as it's ingrained in everyone in the West. As they are just as much a derivative amalgamation as Paul’s gibberish they clearly were also made up to serve the political ambitions and doctrinal aims of certain groups, they disagree on peripheral and even basic doctrines, and each serve a particular church's agenda. Also the "historical" Jesus was only believed by certain denominations, and was as much a contested idea as the trinity or physical resurrection. Its an offshoot of vague (and very open to multiple interpretation) Pauline dogma, a cousin to the purely spiritual Jesus branch (which died early), which in turn split into various views on the exact nature of his divinity and resurrection, (and just how much blame the Jews should get) and even how virgin was the virgin Mary.
You read Paul now and conclude that the Jesus, death and resurrection he ambiguously refers to is the one in the gospels, but he could not have had them in mind, as they were yet to be invented, we just get it in the wrong order. The later epistles confirm the gospels as they were written later, but backdated to Paul’s time, like the gospels were backdated to before Paul. (The O.T. writers also did this, alot)) Don’t take anything for granted with the N.T., you need to look past the facade, and see what they don’t want you to, with no bias, assumption or superficial observation. So many ex-xtains still buy part of the lie, even when they lose the rest, making the truth harder to find.
The xtians would have you believe there was a universal consensus on his existence, (as well as his divinity) from the start and use the rapid rise in membership as proof, however not only was there no agreement even on his historicity, but the membership was very low for the 1st couple of centuries, and even Constantine's bribes didn't cause too much of a rise. (The pagans though it was irrational and morally inferior, funny that.) If there was no actual Jesus, that would explain the late appearance of the "testimonies" to that effect as they had to wait for his alleged "contemporaries" to die off, and there was certainly those who disagreed with the claims either way, hence the low numbers, no apostles, witnesses, or evidence, just a bunch of contradictory claims, from different camps. There was a lot of opposition by the rationalists and Jews who questioned the whole thing, and Celsus pointed out the same flaws in the cult that we notice today, (they burnt all his books) so with the silence of the critics, the re-writing of its past, any claim that there had to have been a historical Jesus fails. A study of the true circumstances of xtianity’s beginnings, although difficult, given how much they erased of their “heroic” past, reveals precisely the pattern we’d expect if there was simply a offshoot claiming a historical interpretation of Paul who out fought all other views. For xtains to turn around now and say it was always believed thus is just a lie built on ignorance.
Included are two graphs, the 1st show the difference between the rise in xtianity dictated by mythology and dogma, the other the more accurate approximation, showing the historical claim needed time to be excepted. With no actual witnesses, contemporary followers or miraculous apostles it took political change to improve things.
The second is a very rough diagram showing the development of the Jesus myth, it’s simplified, leaving out the various different groups that held each view, and the many other differences of opinion. The gospels were written between 74-170ce and where designed to take out the other denominations, such as the Gnostics. As you can see each branch eventually died, leaving our current orthodoxy, (survival of the "fittest") it embraced the most “historical” and material view of Jesus, and continued to elevate his status far beyond the others.
My (on-going) research draws on so many sources its hard to just list them all. I lot of my material is out of print McCabe, but there's loads of info from Carrier and Price over at Internet infidels and Prometheus, as to web data...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml
Above is a very comprehensive review of the Jesus Puzzle, one of the best mythicist works, it can be read as a commentary, or even an outline of the entire book and along with http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CarrierComment.htm the authors response they gives you a very good idea of the content.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_on_jesus.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apology.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/price1.htm
scepticjoe
I tend to think of the Ebionites as forerunners of Paul, and they believed in a adoptionist Christ. That would suggest that Christ predates Paul. Where do you place the Ebionites in your scheme? Are they identical to the Nazarenes and/or Judaizers?
ME
A lot of what we "know" about the Ebionites has come to us from xtian sources so is suspect. They did not believe in a saviour-god jesus but that may reflect a later development, not a pre-Pauline position (like liberal xtians and jews for jesus today). There is no evidence there where Ebionites before Paul, or any xtians (as we recognise the term) of any kind, as his writings are the oldest, they refer to other groups but don’t say how long they’ve been around. The Essenes and Baptists seem the most likely source for Paul and Mark. Although there seems to have been Judean groups he acknowledged we don't know how reliable these accounts are. Adoptionism developed from the gospel of Mark's lack of reference to a nativity, and combined with Paul's Jesus to form certain Gnostic and other branches that were based on "gaps" left in the picture that were open to interpretation. Those who favoured a pre-Baptist godman wrote gospels to confirm this doctrine (plugging the gaps) and those won out. So many other views where drowned out that as an empiricist all the data allows me to say is if there was a pre Paul xtianity his legacy outlives anything done before him. As the gospels and later epistles are all gentile, written in Greece, Rome or Egypt nothing of Judean origin survives, leading me to doubt the faith started there. Maybe it did, but all traces of it are lost. One thing is for sure, gentile and political are what remains to constitute the post-Paul N.T. elements. There may have been some form of “Christ” being before Paul, there certainly were plenty of similar deities, but not a historical person like Apolonius who’s historicity was clear from the beggining. Previous believers point to earlier versions of the concept not an actual person, it is assumption to project a gospel influenced historicity onto any early xtain faiths.
As this site shows, there are those who so prefer the gospels today they are prepared to throw out the earlier Paul, with no thought to continuity, but purely doctrine.
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm
And as this site demonstrates, they are those trying to “free” Paul from gospel and later doctrinal interpretations, and get to an early version that may represent what people believed before the gospels, and maybe how Jesus was seen. (Though they try to avoid the historical aspect, and deal in theology instead)
http://www.thepaulpage.com/
You cannot tell what era a belief began based on position or doctrine, as all periods of xtianity have groups pix n’ mixing, adding and taking away. Religion is subjective, it conforms to our wants.
We cannot assume these Ebionites believed in a gospel-like Jesus as there were no gospels before Paul, and their later beliefs where clearly influence by Mark, over Paul. Empirically they appear as a branch from the historical Jesus side, (but stuck to more Jewish interpretations which does not necessarily mean earlier), we cannot tell if they believed he was historical before Paul, or simply followed this interpretation. The Nazarenes were nothing to do with xtianity, but were one of the many groups who’s ideas Paul "borrowed" from.
scepticjoe
Could the name Jesus/Joshua be based on a dead Nazarene?
ME
Not really, Paul’s saviour was no historical figure, Nazarene or otherwise, if there was a figure who served at first as a template, all trace of him is lost. They were definitely many figures who contributed bits and pieces of biography or teachings, but no single founder. The whole Nazarene thing was a later embellishment, (and a bad one), they may have intended to re-invent him as a Nazarene, but there was a breakdown in communication. Literalism, (belief in a historical Jesus) was a later development, one the “heretic” groups considered “heretical” the further back you go the less historical he becomes, any earlier than Paul and who knows? We cannot assume later developments are likely to be correct. But just for you I’ll do some more research on the Ebionites and Nazarenes.
triv
Well I got some resources for corroborative materials for Jesus. I'll be reading those and comparing them to Rook so I can give a thought out response.
ME
And they never saw him again...
Just kidding, bring it on.
HanSolo
About Paul creating the amalgamated Christianity, it could be the “revelation” he had.
ME
Good one, it was either a linear (though hellenised) development and variation of Essene and other more extreme Jewish Doomsday theologies or a pagan salvation dogma tacked onto a Jewish frame, the gentile nature of xtianity after Paul is easy to ascertain, but before that it gets really murky.
Hansolo
Maybe he had seen the problem with all the different factions of deified leaders and how easy people bought into each on of them, the revelation was to bring them all together to the super-religion, which evidently it has become. It was an epiphany of “Hey, I can get some power with this!” magnitude.
ME
Several problems with that, firstly it was not a success for a long time, and it was political fortune more than anything else which gave it the boost it needed. Also many of the popular elements (such as women being involved) occurred after Paul (and he would have opposed it). The many layers of myth and doctrine added over time were fought over and imposed with brutal force, it was a struggle, not a triumph, one that will never be resolved for as long as xtianity lasts. He was after a tiny corner of the world, so he could wait for the end, no long-term world domination was in his plans. Many of the elements, (especially teachings) are poor knock-offs, and the doctrines which xtianity rips off are badly put together, causing schisms and contradictions all over the place. Make no mistake, xtianity is not a success due to being a better religion, it’s a disaster in everyway but membership.
scepticjoe
Let me be clear: I am not arguing for a historic Jesus, i.e. a person that any history can be written about. I do suggest there might have been a template person the Jesus myth started from. As an analogy, let me compare the Jesus myth to the Santa Claus myth. At first glance, the Santa Claus myth appears to be totally fabricated, but in reality it is based on a St Nicholas who was a bishop in Asia Minor. Of course, Santa Claus has next to no resemblance to the original St. Nicholas. Similarly, if there was a real Jesus, his teachings and story probably have little relationship to the New Testament Jesus.
One of your references also admits the possibility of a template Christ:
"It may be conceded as possible, and even probable, that a religious enthusiast of Galilee, named Jesus, was the germ of this mythical Jesus Christ. But this is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact. " http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS
You suggest that the Jesus myth is more similar to the Easter Bunny, i.e. completely fictional and not based on a real person. You may be right. So little is known of early Christianity it is hard to tell if there was a real person template or not.
ME
You are technically correct, but if there is no trace of the "real" Jesus in the N.T. then it's the same as if he didn’t exist. I use Occhams Razor, and cut out Jesus, as he makes a hypothetical that fills in gaps that aren’t really there. We can account for xtianity without him. I've no doubt elements of the likes of Apollonius went into the mix, but none of these sources constitute a Jesus, so strictly speaking we still have no reason to suppose he existed not even as a "founder". If there was a real Jesus you'd think at least one denomination surely would have kept some record of him that can be verified. But as all the elements of him can be traced to sources none of which can be called "Jesus" in any meaningful sense the mythicist case remains the strongest.
Posing a Jesus without a good solid argument is pointless. The source you quote uses the term "assumption" and that's all it is, one based on the difficulty of letting go of a habitual paradigm. It took me a long time to come to the mythicist position, I had to rule out every single argument for a historical Jesus, and until I hear a new one that can't be destroyed as easily as the rest I will continue to defend mythicism as the best explanation. In a way I’d like it to be destroyed, then at least we’d have some progress on the issue, but I can’t see that happening.
I intend to challenge everyone to a all on one on this, once my studies are concluded, as I'm convinced this is the future, and will test it against any theist or freethinker. A peer review, I'd like to see others give this some serious thought.
Will be added to...