The Christ Myth Theory

Religion and Secularism
41

It is not so crazy. At least I, as an atheist, think there is really a historical figure on which the stories are build. But of course the bible stories are changed and exaggerated. Barth Ehrman wrote his book ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ and answers the question positively. Based on (in)consistencies between the different sources, and how the stories fit in the historical context, he argues that we can be pretty sure that:

  • Jesus was born in Nazareth
  • Jesus encountered John the baptist
  • He had a brother called James
  • He was crucified by the Romans
  • He believed in the imminent coming of the Apocalypse, possibly in his lifetime

And that’s it. Not much. And surely no magical virgin birth, son of God and what else. Without the successful ‘marketeer’ Paul, he would probably have been forgotten (but that is just my opinion).

He also discusses several mythicists; I find his arguments pretty convincing.

1 Like
42

The book “On the Historicity of Jesus”, addresses all of those. It’s conclusions are convincing, but not exactly certain. On this forum, I like being free to say “crazy”. In everyday life, I temper that a bit.

43

Maybe, but the historical figure is too buried in myth to find. It’s like playing “will the real Jesus, please stand up”.

Paul didn’t write all the books attributed to him either. Also the 5 things you listed, have been blown out of the water for me by other authors. I don’t read just one person’s work on this subject.

44

I think that most atheists are willing to accept there was a man named Jesus who was a preacher of sorts.
But that doesn’t prove anything about the existence of a god or gods.

The only special quality that scripture assigns to Jesus is that he was born from a virgin through some divine intervention. This assumption completely destroys the entire concept because no male can be born from a virgin female. It requires male DNA to produce a male child. Else all children from a single female would be identical to the mother and by that scientifict fact , Jesus born from a virgin could never have been male to begin with. It is scripture itself that basically disproves Jesus as a son of God.

45

There is that.

Though I still think, the biggest key to all this Jesus v God business, is a simple recognition that our “Gods” are creations born of our own hearts, minds, and souls.

Then again, guess it can be difficult for those who don’t appreciate that we humans are creations of Earth’s creative processes.

46

We like to see ourselves as divine creatures, but we are just another expression of Earth’s creative potential . The old wiccans had it right.

Gaia philosophy (named after Gaia, Greek goddess of the Earth) is a broadly inclusive term for relating concepts about, humanity as an effect of the life of this planet.

The Gaia hypothesis holds that all organisms on a life-giving planet regulate the biosphere in such a way as to promote its habitability. Gaia concepts draw a connection between the survivability of a species (hence its evolutionary course) and its usefulness to the survival of other species.

While there were a number of precursors to Gaia hypothesis, the first scientific form of this idea was proposed as the Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock, a UK chemist, in 1970. The Gaia hypothesis deals with the concept of biological homeostasis, and claims the resident life forms of a host planet coupled with their environment have acted and act like a single, self-regulating system.
Gaia philosophy - Wikipedia

47

I know. But that has nothing to do with my point about Paul. If you read the Epistles (even if you only read the ones that are considered genuine), it is clear that Paul must have grounded churches at many places. So in my eyes, he is the grounder of Christianity. The religion might better have be called Paulism. Especially because his teachings don’t seem to fit the teachings of Jesus himself.
And, btw, if you read the paulian Epistles, it is very clear why the ‘argument of silence’ of the mythicists for them doesn’t hold water. Paul’s letters were exactly that: letters, written to churches he had grounded, answering to questions and problems that had arisen there. Why should he have written more about Jesus’ life in these letters, when this was just not the topic of his letters? Which is what mythicists assume.

What I am often missing in these historical discussions is application of Ockham’s Razor. What is the simplest explanation of the quick rising of Christianity? I would say, it is based on a real person (that did not quite fit the bill, so stories had to be exaggerated, some facts had to be bend to fit the expectations, e.g. was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? When everything was made up, then why don’t all the stories just tell us he was born in Bethlehem? No, an unpleasant fact had to be swept under the carpet.)

A historical Jesus, being an apocalyptic preacher, that was not what a Jewish messiah was supposed to be (no man of power, not expelling of the Romans, but crucified by them), and a religious fanatic as Paul must have been, explain the consistencies and inconsistencies in our historical records better than an unknown conspiracy, brewing everything together.

48

Mythicism is not an unknown conspiracy. There are some really bad theories out there, but those are easily addressed. Then there is the well done history, tracing Jewish legends and how they changed.

49

gertdeboer thanks for showing up again.
You’re always worth reading.

Refreshing, interesting and to my mind, it holds water.

Follow up on “Argument of Silence”

Too many assumptions?

Well, what I think I have covered this in the above discussion. The historical Jesus argument hangs heavily on the assumption the NT epistle authors knew the basic narrative that was later set down in the Gospels; and the assumption that this narrative itself was historical.

I have discussed the circularity of the historical Jesus arguments several times. A keyword search on circular reasoning and Davies will pull out a fair selection of these. Also my Sanders posts demonstrate how the foundation of HJ studies is built on assumptions rather than the sorts of evidence that is the basis of most nonbiblical historical scholarship.

It is the one opposed to mythicism who is the one who is multiplying a priori assumptions to argue the case for historicity.

  1. The assumption that the NT epistle authors knew the basic narrative we only find in the later gospels;

  2. The assumption that NT epistle authors are consciously alluding to slightly similar Jesus sayings even when the authors attribute their sayings to Scripture or the Spirit;

  3. The assumption that the interpolations of any kind in the NT epistles are extremely unlikely despite what we know of their prevalence in both the Classical and Christian literature, and the manuscript history;

  4. The assumption that the original recipients of the earliest non-gospel Christian literature knew of the gospel narrative;

  5. The assumption that the narratives in the Gospels and Acts have a historical basis;

  6. The assumption that the Gospel narratives are derived from oral tradition traceable back to historical events;

  7. The assumption that only one concept of a Jewish Messiah was dominant in the Second Temple Period;

  8. The assumption that a set of human experiences inexplicable or unknown was at the heart of the origin of Christianity;

  9. The assumption that Jews by their thousands could be persuaded to convert to beliefs diametrically opposed to all they had identified with, and that had no precedent in recorded human experience.

My own preference for certain arguments for mythicism is because they dismiss with these unsupported assumptions.

In their place, I suggest:

  1. that the more parsimonious explanation for literary, philosophical and theological similarities among texts (in their images and structures of narratives, treatises and apocalypses) is the usual pattern of influence and borrowing;
  2. that the more plausible historical explanation is one that is explicable in terms of common human experience.
50

Assumptions? 1. The Gospels weren’t written by the names they are attributed too. 2. Many people were impaled on a Stauros. It was capital punishment back then. 3. Each author embellished on the other’s work. They aren’t even in the order they were written. 4. Paul only wrote about 2/3s of the books attributed to him. Other people wrote the other books attributed to Paul. Basically, a lot of stuff was made up and that’s not even getting into the errors in history, geography, symbolism, midrash, the Solar mythology or other myths the Bible borrowed from. It’s all stories and if there was a real man behind the stories, his life was really embellished.

1 Like
51

I agree, Xianity is actually “Paulism” as you call it.

I haven’t heard that argument.

Except, he never actually met Jesus.

A cult

If there was an actual man named Jesus, of whom there were many, he’s too buried in myth to find. These are just stories with many inaccuracies. Basically, Xianity, with its many sects, even when it first began, is nothing more than another cult. However, this cult has managed to survived many other cults, mostly due to its ability to control people- Remember the Inquisition and then there was slavery, where the Massa’s religion was forced on the slaves.

A historical Jesus does not follow with what you said after that. The Jesus in the Bible never actually existed. There might have been named Jesus, who was from Nazareth, but he’s not the one in the Bible. What is in the Bible is more mythology.

Have you ever read any of the works of the late Bishop John Shelby Spong? I highly recommend him, especially those who are still in belief mode, which you seem to be.

52
53

The argument is that Paul, if he really knew about Jesus’ life, should have written more about it. Obviously, because he didn’t (that is the silence), it must just have been his ‘ghostly encounter with Christ’ on the way to Damascus, so no ‘real Jesus’ behind it.
But as I said, Paul’s letters were written in answer to problems and questions in churches he grounded, retelling the story of Jesus was just not on topic.

Many cults are build around some charismatic person. In this case, that might be Jesus or Paul. I would say, that at least Paul must have been quite charismatic. Xianity as a cult is no argument pro or contra a historical Jesus.

Yep: not just inaccuracies, but also inconsistencies. That’s why I listed only 5 points we know about Jesus. The rest doesn’t pass the ‘filters’ historians apply, to reconstruct historical events.

That is not an argument, that is your position. I respect your position, I even do not find it crazy. I just do not agree.

Sorry, that is a low blow: you are also in belief mode. You believe that the mythicists are right. I believe classical, academical historians are right (not Xian apologists, of course). I’ve seen the historical arguments in favour of Jesus’ existence, I have read a few reactions of mythicists on Ehrman’s book, and for me the case is closed. I do not belong to some science denier club, be it flat earthers, climate skeptics or mythicists. (Yes, I wanted to allow me a low blow too.)

And just for the record: no, I am not a Christian, I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, I do not believe he did miracles. I only believe that due to some historical accidents, the cult Paul initiated around Jesus grew to a world religion.

54

But even those go beyond the so-called consensus. Ehrmann does a poor job of backing all of those up. The “brother” James is a half sentence. Sorry, I’m not going to dig through all my references and present them.

My favorite argument against the consensus that Jesus was a real person is that almost everyone who says that, works somewhere where they have to sign a statement saying they believe it.

55

Question is not if there ever was a person named Jesus, question is if there ever was a person named Jesus who was the son of God via immaculate conception from a virgin human.

Why did god have no trouble creating Adam and Eve from mud, but had to resort to impregnation of a virgin human in order to create another male child, which is genetically impossible?

The story is so full of wishful thinking that from a scientific perspective it just cannot be true other than via natural processes.
AFAIK humans evolved naturally via abiogenesis and there was never a Jesus as specifically described in the bible.

Jesus did exist and was a preacher who was crucified for blasphemy. End of story.

56

I never said it was.

Exactly why if there was a historical Jesus, he’s too buried in myth to find.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is there are so many inconsistencies and inaccuracies, that it is obvious that the Jesus in the Bible is not the actual Jesus. Everyone, except literalists, know that the Bible cannot be taken literally, so you can’t say it is talking about a literal historical Jesus. The Bible isn’t even historical in it’s retelling of events of the time, which didn’t even occur at the time stated. It does have a lot of symbolism, metaphor, and other tool of writers telling stories. You can’t take any of it literally, much less believe it actually happened because of the inaccuracies and symbolism. They are, and even Lutheran and Episcopal ministers will tell you this, stories. The Bible is filled with nothing but stories that cannot be taken literally. One can even got to an adult Bible study at an Episcopal church and learn about all the symbolism and metaphors in the stories. Apologists want people to believe the stories, so you can’t take their word for anything concerning a historical Jesus.

Apologists aren’t historians. They are apologists, many of which are either Catholic or Evangelical. I’ve studied, in a university under Religious professors and not just met with, read, and discussed with Robert M. Price and Bishop John Shelby Spong. One of my professors was Victor Matthews, an Episcopalian and a prof at MO State Uni, in which you can find some of his works on Amazon. Religion was also my minor for the second degree I went for. I’m not going from just belief, but also my education.

Probably the apologists you talk about and not actual theologians and professors of Religion. As I said, I learned from theologians and professors of Religion. BTW, Robert M. Price use to be a minister, but even though he’s an atheist now, he’s still theologian, just as the late Bishop John Shelby Spong was.

For the record, I use to be a Xian (grew up in Free Methodist and Church of God, then Lutheran in my teens, and finally became Episcopalian in my early adult years until I became a humanist. Now I don’t believe because religion and the idea of a deity are nothing more than human concepts, even with an evolutionary aspect of thinking in the development of these concepts. Even Jesus himself isn’t pictured or described by Xians as he most likely would have looked like- more like a Middle Eastern to Northern African looking- dark complexion, brown eyes, dark hair that might have been tight curls or wavy. He was never white with straight light brown hair and bluish eyes. Of course, none of that is Biblical, but too many Xians give an inaccurate description of what he might have looked like. Apologists are almost as bad with their alleged history.

57

There is the mythology. The idea of an immaculate conception is a myth and a prime example of what non-literalists point to as an example of not taking the BIble literally. Apologists will insist it really happened and thus the burying in mythology begins.

Jesus was impaled on a stauros, which I don’t think gertdeboer knows any Greek, which shows more than likely he never took any college level theology course, beyond the basic, unless it was in a religious college. I said stauros earlier and I think it went over his head. A stauros was a popular method of capital punishment around the time Jesus allegedly lived, which make since writers would write such stories. An miraculous birth story was quite popular in many religions.

58

This is one of the problems: Ehrman says, with Did Jesus Exist? he addressed laypersons, and that he only describes what the consensus under historians is. You say the opposite. That’s a kind of stalemate for me.

I think that is not the discussion here: nobody in this thread believes that.

It is even worse: there is no ‘the Jesus’ in the bible. Especially John’s Jesus is very different from the synoptics, but there are already serious differences between the synoptic gospels. Ehrman has two opposing camps of critics: fundamentalist Christians on one side (because he strips off nearly everything that they believe in) and mythicists on the other. The only question is if some historical facts shine through all the theologically heavily biased gospels. Ehrman show us how historians do that. And they definitely do not take the bible literally. You create a false dilemma: as if there is nothing between taking the bible literally and seeing the bible as just fantasy.

I explicitly excluded them as reliable sources.

I completely agree, and it has nothing to do with the question if the stories are based on some apocalyptic preacher that really existed, or if they are just fantasy.

First is correct, I know next to no Greek (a few words because of my study in philosophy, but I did not specialise in classical philosophy). The second is again a low blow, an insinuation. Just the same false dilemma as above: either one believes everything (literally) what is written in the bible, or one must believe that Jesus did not exist at all. So mythicists are simply fundamentalists, but atheist fundamentalists. (low blow for a low blow…)

59

I’m not sure what my source was for that view of the consensus. Unfortunately, it’s not something that can be easily looked up.

I’m sure there are some, okay, many. It’s one of those annoying things about looking into historical issues that are not well documented, people will make up their mind on very little data and little knowledge of how history is done. The peer-reviewed book I read showed probabilities and how they were arrived at, and concluded somewhere 1 in 4 odds that there was a person behind the gospels. And nothing else, BTW, just that a person existed, nothing about any of the words or actions attributed to them.