Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Christianity => Topic started by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 02:39:39 PM

Title: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 02:39:39 PM
I think that Jesus Christ was not a man, but a myth.  Off and on through the years I've dabbled in authors who think that as well, and publish their arguments for and against that idea.  I'd like to share a few of the books and I have dealing with that subject.  I'll give a brief overview of that book just to give a tiny flavor of what that author's idea is.  I would also appreciate any who would like to share any books they have dealing with that subject.  I'll kick it off with the thumbnail of a couple of books I have:

Deconstructing Jesus--Robert M. Price--2000.  Price goes right to the edge of saying that Jesus was a myth, but does not quite get there.  But I get the impression he thinks premise is correct.  Anyway, his intro gives one a taste for the book--it is titled: Jesus Christ as the Effect of Christianity, not the Cause.  He is an ex-minister and does a good job of explaining early Christianity.  Some chpt titles gives on a glimpse of his ideas--The Jesus Movements; The Christ Cults; Sacred Scapegoat; The Cruci-Fiction; and The Historical Jesus?  I liked it.

The Jesus Puzzle--Earl Doherty--1999.  This is the book that prodded Carrier into writing his latest book about Jesus; he was challenged by  his friends to critic this book and to shut them up, he did.  Carrier said that the book has some flaws, but in general he could not find much wrong with Doherty's reasoning.  And that prompted him to research and write On The Historicity of Jesus.  Doherty's ideas can be summed up with his subtitle for the book:  Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?  And he proceeds to say, yes it did.  His is a very academic approach but very readable.  I would suggest this an excellent starter book if one is interested.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 02:59:46 PM
Whether or not there was a messianic figure somewhere in the mix, the end result is the same- Jesus of the bible is for all intents and purposes a myth, regardless of the origins.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Solitary on June 10, 2015, 03:13:50 PM
The fact that there isn't a thing written about Jesus at the time in any public record, any historian, or any other form, but after 40-60 years after his death says it all to me. If He did what he was suppose to have done, He sure would have been famous, even more than the Beatles, and yet nothing written about his childhood, life, death, criminal records, nada! And the fact that everyone knows what He and Mary looked like is beyond stupid.  :wall:
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 02:59:46 PM
Whether or not there was a messianic figure somewhere in the mix, the end result is the same- Jesus of the bible is for all intents and purposes a myth, regardless of the origins.
This is exactly what I thought for a long, long time.  I thought he was real in that he was a man. But this teachings were added to, blown out of proportion and probably fabricated. 
John Dominic Crossan in Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, puts forth a like idea.  He suggests that he was simply a wandering sage, living among the poor--he looked poor, but really a social revolutionary.  This is a more traditional view than I take--but I have it because I wanted to read what a marginal, traditional Jesus would be presented as.  He accepts traditional sources as being accurate.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: Solitary on June 10, 2015, 03:13:50 PM
The fact that there isn't a thing written about Jesus at the time in any public record, any historian, or any other form, but after 40-60 years after his death says it all to me. If He did what he was suppose to have done, He sure would have been famous, even more than the Beatles, and yet nothing written about his childhood, life, death, criminal records, nada! And the fact that everyone knows what He and Mary looked like is beyond stupid.  :wall:
Yeah, none of that sits well with me either.  And it is becoming more and more apparent to the academic world that this just does not make any kind of sense.  In this case absence of evidence means just that--there is no evidence to present, because Jesus was the Joshua (Joshua and Jesus are the same names, different languages) messiah myth from long ago. 
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 06:21:50 PM
My point is that regardless of whether there was a messianic figure or a sage, the whole thing- as you said- ballooned beyond that to the point of Jesus being essentially all myth. For the most part I agree with your argument, because we have read much of the same stuff- the only "but" being whether the core of the myth was an actual person.

This is one of those endlessly debatable topics. But the reason I'll reserve total agreement is that there were, as a few people have pointed out, a lot of candidates for the potential of being a Messiah. But its pretty much sixes, as the end result is the same.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 07:13:31 PM
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 06:21:50 PM
My point is that regardless of whether there was a messianic figure or a sage, the whole thing- as you said- ballooned beyond that to the point of Jesus being essentially all myth. For the most part I agree with your argument, because we have read much of the same stuff- the only "but" being whether the core of the myth was an actual person.

This is one of those endlessly debatable topics. But the reason I'll reserve total agreement is that there were, as a few people have pointed out, a lot of candidates for the potential of being a Messiah. But its pretty much sixes, as the end result is the same.
I know that you and I think just about alike on this issue.  But for some reason I want to know, one way or the other, was he a man or a myth or even a man with a myth attached.  You are totally correct that in the end it probably does not matter.  Except I still like to worry at that point--like a cat with a catnip toy.  Can't leave it alone. :))
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 07:26:55 PM
this is the book that pushed me to new efforts when I first read it.  The Jesus Mysteries (was the 'original Jesus" a Pagan God) by Timothy Freke and Peter Ganky--1999.
It talks in great detail about the mystery religions and what those contained.  And it links the Jesus story to those myths.  Believe it or not, my minster at the time and two other guys read and discussed this book.  We read a chapter a week and every Wed. evening we discussed that chapter.  By the end of the book we all had serious doubts about Jesus being a real man.  So, I started looking deeper.  It is an easy read and quite interesting and I suggest it for just about anybody to read. 

One of the first books I read after the one above was this one--Jesus Myth by GA Wells--1999.  He is not an easy read.  But he does have good arguments, especially about Paul and the rest of the NT writers not relying on a flesh and blood man, but of a body of works detailing a cosmic type being.  But he does say it is possible that a shadowy type figure could lurk in the background of some of the Jesus stories.  He does not rule that out.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 11:22:43 PM
It isn't an issue with me, and I've been on both sides of the question, so if after more historians weigh in it comes up Jesus was a total myth, I'd buy it.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: SGOS on June 11, 2015, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 10, 2015, 02:39:39 PM
Deconstructing Jesus--Robert M. Price--2000.  Price goes right to the edge of saying that Jesus was a myth, but does not quite get there.

If one is to remain inside the confines of logic, this is the only position to hold.  Until actual proof of existence can be found, the answer remains unknown.  There are various speculations on both sides of the argument that point to various evidences that might support each view, but none of those evidences are proof.  On the myth side of the arguments, there is a lot of evidence that legitimately arouse suspicion that Jesus was a myth. 

The "Jesus a real person" side of the argument is most supported by the fallacy of numbers, in that most people just believe he existed.  There are more scholarly arguments than the fallacy of numbers, but none qualify as proof.

As for myself, I am suspicious of claims that he was a real person.  And of course, the miracle worker in the Bible is obviously a myth.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 11, 2015, 08:13:12 PM
Another Robert M. Price book--The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man--2003, is a good read.  Some of the chpt. titles are--The Hinayana Gospel; The Mahayana Gospel; The Anointed One; The Name of the Lord--all point to the fact that the biographical data of Jesus is found in all sorts of sources; sources that were in existence long before Jesus was supposed to be alive.  He demonstrates how Jesus just sort of shrinks down to nothing as one looks in detail at all the 'facts' of his real life.  A solid book and read.

The Elusive Messiah--Raymond Martin--1999 is good as an intro to this subject.  He presents a decent survey of the major players who have written on the subject.  that, in itself is worth the book's price.  He then discusses the various Christian responses to this challenge.  Finally, he wraps up with what he thinks the Christian responses will be.  A decent read and gives ideas of where to go for more detail.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 12:35:05 AM
Wasn't Jesus of Christ and/ or Jesus of Nazareth prophesied? I think soldiers were sent to kill all boys of the village he was to be born in by an Egyptian king or something. I think the romans took care of the rest, including any remnants like they said they were gonna do. A shame though. He had the right messages for the most part I think.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 09:07:26 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 12:35:05 AM
Wasn't Jesus of Christ and/ or Jesus of Nazareth prophesied? I think soldiers were sent to kill all boys of the village he was to be born in by an Egyptian king or something. I think the romans took care of the rest, including any remnants like they said they were gonna do. A shame though. He had the right messages for the most part I think.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk
Prophesied?  Sure--but anything can be shown to have been prophesied with hindsight and the ability to fix the text.  Daniel was a major source for doing that--but that text has been changed so often that nobody knows what the original said.  And at the time of 'Jesus christ' there were dozens of Jewish Messiah cults in that area of the world.  Understand that Jesus Christ was not a name.  Jesus/Joshua (same name) was a name.  Christ was a term used to denote an office.  It means 'annotated'.  There were many Christs in Jewish history.  And there were many Jesus/Joshua's running around then, as well.  Of course the Jews were looking to Jesus/Joshua to save them--that's what the name means--savior.  According to Jewish legend, Moses (not a real person, btw) lead the Jews out of Egypt toward the promised land.  He  did not get them there--Joshua did--You know 'Joshua at the battle of Jericho" and all that crap.  So, Joshua, according to Jewish myth, lead the people out of the wilderness into the promised land.  They were looking for a Joshua to lead them against the Romans.  The killing of all the boys in a village??--pure fiction.  Jesus had the right messages I guess, if you consider a mythical person capable of delivering messages.  And if you want to pick and choose which are the good ones.  Everybody picks different ones for that. 

It is all a fiction. But to fully understand that you have to do a little research.  Research the bible and it's canonization process.  And who wrote it.  And when.  Plus, read about the beginning of the Christian religion.  And don't use just one source--use several.  And read about the historicity of Jesus--once again, not just one source, but many.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:09:32 AM
Im

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:13:54 AM
I completely agree that the bible has been tampered with. But the teachings of the old testament which I think is nearly identical to Muslim beliefs with different names   is dead on in most cases a lot of it was elders of the time doing there best to make sense of the happenings around them. Much like modern science without the controls. It was just trying to set a standard for a way of life that could lead to universal harmony

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 09:14:28 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:09:32 AM
Im

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk
Well, pops, if you'd like some suggestions, look over the books I listed above.  I can suggest more as well.  And while you are at it, why not pop over to the intro section and tell us about yourself.  And welcome.  Hope you stick around.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:19:56 AM
Thank you

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 09:21:17 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:13:54 AM
I completely agree that the bible has been tampered with. But the teachings of the old testament which I think is nearly identical to Muslim beliefs with different names   is dead on in most cases a lot of it was elders of the time doing there best to make sense of the happenings around them. Much like modern science without the controls. It was just trying to set a standard for a way of life that could lead to universal harmony

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I sort of agree.  But to say 'tampered with' is making light of what was actually done.  We don't have the autographs of any of the bible.  So we don't know how deep the forgeries go--but deep they do go.  It is nothing like that the bible (either the old or new test.) were plopped to earth fully composed, and then people began 'tampering' with it.  No, it was a fabrication from the very beginning.  I suppose one could say that the OT is a sort of survival guide for nomadic desert living.  But this survival guide was more than that--it was a way to take control of a group of people because the 'elders' could demonstrate they had a pipeline to God--so follow my lead.  So, when you suggest 'modern science without the controls' was what they practiced--I guess you could say that.  But isn't that what we call 'magic' now???  Science without the controls isn't science.  The authors of the OT were not worried about universal harmony--only universal control.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:25:41 AM
Didn't know any of them. I'm sure most were worried about establishing a safe environment for there bloodlines. Wouldn't go so far as to call it control. Most real molestation of the written word probably came later with the advent of Catholicism and Christianity.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 17, 2015, 09:25:41 AM
Didn't know any of them. I'm sure most were worried about establishing a safe environment for there bloodlines. Wouldn't go so far as to call it control. Most real molestation of the written word probably came later with the advent of Catholicism and Christianity.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk
Nope.  It happen very, very early.  Look at the book of Daniel.  It has been changed many, many times--and that is only what can be established now,  and since we don't have the autograph, we cannot tell exactly how many times it really was changed.  Or by whom and when.  But scholars know it was quite often and quite a bit.  Not control?  Read the OT carefully.  Look at all 600+ rules laid down and the punishments attached to them for their violation.  How is that not control?  Who renders the punishments?  The leaders, of course.  Who are the leaders?  Those appointed by God, of course.  So, who interprets what God wants?  The leaders, of course.  How is that not control? 

Catholicism is Christianity.  And that was all there was until Martin Luther.  And yes, the Catholics made thousands of changes.  Simply study the writings of Paul to see that.  His epistles, the ones he actually wrote, even, is most likely a mashup of several different letters.  And we don't have the autographs of any of the NT either, so we don't really know what the original authors wrote--and the only NT author we know of is Paul.  The rest is unknown.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: 1liesalot on June 17, 2015, 05:50:59 PM
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 02:59:46 PM
Whether or not there was a messianic figure somewhere in the mix, the end result is the same- Jesus of the bible is for all intents and purposes a myth, regardless of the origins.

Yes, and thank fuck you're right about this, given that the Jesus of the bible is just a milder version of the psycho Yahweh of the Hebrew texts.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 06:09:46 PM
I've read many of the same books on the mythical Jesus, and I'm convinced that the Jesus myth, like many of the other dying-and-rising savior god myths of the near Asiatic region, came from a careful observation of the sky: the various celestial bodies providing stories of the gods based on their positions relative to other celestial bodies. It's just astrotheology, but I think many, if not all religions begin in similar ways. The main difference between Christianity and the other myths is that the Romans created it for reasons of their own, probably an attempt to control zealous, militaristic Jews of the period.

They've got lots of stuff on astrotheology at youtube. Anyone interested in ancient myths should be familiar with the subject.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 07:19:23 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 06:09:46 PM
I've read many of the same books on the mythical Jesus, and I'm convinced that the Jesus myth, like many of the other dying-and-rising savior god myths of the near Asiatic region, came from a careful observation of the sky: the various celestial bodies providing stories of the gods based on their positions relative to other celestial bodies. It's just astrotheology, but I think many, if not all religions begin in similar ways. The main difference between Christianity and the other myths is that the Romans created it for reasons of their own, probably an attempt to control zealous, militaristic Jews of the period.

They've got lots of stuff on astrotheology at youtube. Anyone interested in ancient myths should be familiar with the subject.
Yes, I do agree.  But while the Romans did not create Christianity, it gave it one hell of a boost when it made Christianity THE religion of the Romans.  Constantine must have read Marx, for religion is indeed, the opiate of the masses.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 07:20:35 PM
How about Paul/Saul? Was he mythical as well?
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 07:29:12 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 07:20:35 PM
How about Paul/Saul? Was he mythical as well?
I don't know anybody who thinks that.  No, he was quite real.  I have read a couple of books that suggest he was the actual creator of Christianity--A.N. Wilson has a good book out on him if one is interested (well, it's published whether you are interested or not. :)).  I don't know about that, tho.  But if you read just what he is credited with writing (and he is the first writer of the NT) you will find a gnostic type of being presented as Jesus.  Very little, if any biography presented by Paul. 
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 07:57:19 PM
I think the Jews wanted to have a mystery religion, just like the greeks and others of the time, so someone - maybe Paul - gave it to them.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
The final three I have in my personal collection--for now--has this one:
The Christian Myth--Origins, Logic, and Legacy--Burton L. Mack--2003.  A good read--he tackles myth making in an interesting way.  And shows how that impacts the Christian religion. 

The Myth of the Resurrection and other Essays--Joseph McCabe--1993.  Deals with the resurrection and not only in the Christian religion, but religions in general.  Has a section on 'Did Jesus Ever Live'?  And the last segment deals with how Christianity was formed.  A small and quick read.

The last one is one picked up for a buck somewhere--have not read it yet.
Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs-The Essene Revelations on the Historical Jesus--Ahmed Osman--2004.  He argues that Joshua and Jesus were the same person.  Interesting thought.

The next one I will have to buy will be Proving History, Richard Carrier, in which he details his method of historical research.  Apparently he has devised or revised a mathematical way of providing probabilities about historical events.  Sounds like it will be right down my alley.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 08:01:58 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 17, 2015, 07:57:19 PM
I think the Jews wanted to have a mystery religion, just like the greeks and others of the time, so someone - maybe Paul - gave it to them.
From what I have gathered, the region about the time Jesus is supposed to have been alive, was awash in Jewish messianic cults.  Literally dozens and dozens of them.  We don't hear of all that many because most of the fact that Christianity is the cult that won out and revised history to their liking.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: James Joyce on June 20, 2015, 07:47:52 AM
The best sources are ultimately the primary sources: the New Testament, Josephus, the LXX, Origen, Eusebius etc.

These are all available online, in Greek and in various translations. The interlinear NT at bible.cc is a great tool.

Of the books, I've read Doherty and Price. Both worth reading.

There are a couple of books by priests: Tom Brodie's 'Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus' I haven't read; Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ I have and don't really recommend. It suggests that belief in a historical Jesus is not necessarily essential to a genuine Christian faith. Indeed, theirs could be the true and original Pauline faith.

Carrier has also published a paper on the less famous interpolation in Josephus' Antiquities: 'Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200'. Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012 pp. 489-514. I've read this - it's solid research, though most of what he presents re the Book XX reference being an interpolation, isn't new - but not his more recent book (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 08:47:18 AM
Literary sources have to be balanced by historical material.  It helps if you can "inhabit" the writing you are studying ... but this takes a lot of contextual material.  You can't take Tom Sawyer as a history of 19th century America.  Wilson's book is good, but In Search Of Paul by Crossan and Reed ... is much more scholarly.  !st-2nd century material was the product of competing forces, and then canonized by the Gentile Romans, is hardly objective.  The propaganda of the church and synagogue are hard to escape.  The Hebrew Goddess by Patai ... is an antidote.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 20, 2015, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: James Joyce on June 20, 2015, 07:47:52 AM
The best sources are ultimately the primary sources: the New Testament, Josephus, the LXX, Origen, Eusebius etc.

These are all available online, in Greek and in various translations. The interlinear NT at bible.cc is a great tool.

Of the books, I've read Doherty and Price. Both worth reading.

There are a couple of books by priests: Tom Brodie's 'Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus' I haven't read; Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ I have and don't really recommend. It suggests that belief in a historical Jesus is not necessarily essential to a genuine Christian faith. Indeed, theirs could be the true and original Pauline faith.

Carrier has also published a paper on the less famous interpolation in Josephus' Antiquities: 'Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200'. Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012 pp. 489-514. I've read this - it's solid research, though most of what he presents re the Book XX reference being an interpolation, isn't new - but not his more recent book (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).
James, I appreciate that you came back from the grave to offer suggestions. :)  I will look up your suggestions.  I seem to remember having the Journal of Early Christian Studies bookmarked once upon a time--a couple of computers ago--so thanks for the reminder. 
And welcome--hope you stick around.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 20, 2015, 09:11:37 AM
Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 08:47:18 AM
Literary sources have to be balanced by historical material.  It helps if you can "inhabit" the writing you are studying ... but this takes a lot of contextual material.  You can't take Tom Sawyer as a history of 19th century America.  Wilson's book is good, but In Search Of Paul by Crossan and Reed ... is much more scholarly.  !st-2nd century material was the product of competing forces, and then canonized by the Gentile Romans, is hardly objective.  The propaganda of the church and synagogue are hard to escape.  The Hebrew Goddess by Patai ... is an antidote.
I do have Wilson's book on Paul.  I have two by Crossan but not the one on Paul.  I'll have to get it.  It seems to me that that is what bibical scholars have been doing all along--treating Tom Sawyer as history.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: aitm on June 20, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
If one reads between the lines of the "babble" one can see what, perhaps, really happened. Jesus was a rabbi, not a popular one, his ideas did not sit well among the jews and they refused to follow him. He then decided to preach to the gentiles as a more inclusive idea of a god and perhaps with a little too much sun decided that he was indeed the son of a god, as many before him have tried.  Now the OT tells the jews to kill false prophets, it is actually a demand if I recall, so perhaps jesus knew that the jews would turn against him, decided to commit "suicide by jew" and continued his preaching until the jews decided the time had come to put the false prophet down. Thus, with his consent, albeit defacto, he manufactured his own death.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 09:46:27 AM
aitm - false messiahs are the worst case of ... false prophets.  These charlatans were constantly getting the Jewish community in trouble.  Eventually their activity led to the near extermination of the Jewish people and culture.  In the Book Of Acts, Paul is accused of being The Egyptian ... a recent false messiah who had been briefly notorious at Jerusalem, and then had his followers driven into the desert and slaughtered.  The Egyptian was supposedly killed, but there are always rumors of survivals.  Even with the death of Nero, there were rumors of his survival elsewhere.  A later false messiah in Egypt was called Luke ... could he be one of our NT authors?  Most false messiahs were leaders of violent revolutions, though some were pacifist dreamers ... but to the Romans, pacifist dreamers were even more worthy of extermination, because their sedition was beneath the surface.

Certainly a historical Jesus would be rejected by the Jewish authorities ... that part of the NT is archetypically correct.  But such a person could have gained a few lay followers.  The supposed demonstration against the money changers in the Temple ... was an act deserving death under the religious laws of the time ... and plausibly something that could cause the authorities to "ignore the problem of making Jesus a martyr" and take hesitant action.  Claiming (of course falsely) of raising Lazarus from the dead ... would be even more impelling to official action.  There were plenty of fakirs then and now ... but most take caution not to disturb State affairs.  Yes, definitely "death by cop".  But there was a clear cultus, since Hanukkah times, of Jewish martyrdom.  Death to be endured in obedience to Jewish law, while silent and not resisting.  This existed 200 years before any historical Jesus.

But I think it more plausible that either Paul was a total liar by omission (by not mentioning Jesus' ministry in his letters), or such a singular person never existed, but is a literary creation inspired by numerous real and fictional people over a longer period of time.  The Didache also doesn't refer to a historical Jesus, only to a congregational practice with traveling prophets (aka apostles) which matches the milieux described in Paul's letters.  Christian Gnostics were not above using Paul's writings in their own preaching ... so perhaps Paul was a gnostic, repurposed by a later church.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on June 20, 2015, 10:20:28 AM
Quote from: aitm on June 20, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
If one reads between the lines of the "babble" one can see what, perhaps, really happened. Jesus was a rabbi, not a popular one, his ideas did not sit well among the jews and they refused to follow him. He then decided to preach to the gentiles as a more inclusive idea of a god and perhaps with a little too much sun decided that he was indeed the son of a god, as many before him have tried.  Now the OT tells the jews to kill false prophets, it is actually a demand if I recall, so perhaps jesus knew that the jews would turn against him, decided to commit "suicide by jew" and continued his preaching until the jews decided the time had come to put the false prophet down. Thus, with his consent, albeit defacto, he manufactured his own death.
There was group of wandering 'preachers', which started in the 3rd cent. bc, and was revived in the 1st cent. ce, called the Cynics.  They wandered and preached--any one of them could have been labeled a messiah or could have been named Jesus.  The Gospel of Thomas may have it's origins in the saying of this group.  The Romans did not give a rats ass about the Jewish Messiahs that kept popping up like rabbits--except that these messiahs could lead to a revolt.  None succeed, with the exception of Simeon bar Kochba in 132--135.  For a brief time he was The Messiah, for he defeated the Romans in Jerusalem.  But only for a hot minute--the Romans gathered themselves and crushed the Jews again, just like in 70.  With the evidence we now have, it is more feasible that there was not an actual man named Jesus who became the Christ; it is more likely the history of that man was back filled as the leaders of the Christian movement saw fit. 
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2015, 11:11:44 PM
Technically, the Cynics were Greek gentiles who rejected social norms ... but Jews usually fail to acknowledge their debt to Greek influence, not just with Hellenized Greeks, but also the rabbinical Jews ... they owe argumentation over Torah to the Greeks.  Hybridization was the norm.  The Pharisees were the fundies of their time, aka not really traditional, but a pseudo-traditional ... because they were lay people, not clergy.  The Sadducees were the clergy.  The surviving Sadducees were absorbed by the Pharisees ... and the surviving Jewish messianics (the pacifist ones) were absorbed into Gentile Christianity.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Unbeliever on July 08, 2015, 07:12:21 PM
Several years ago I read Caesar's Messiah, by Atwill, and liked it too much to really believe it. But I thought he made a pretty good case. Anyone else here read it?
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on July 08, 2015, 08:24:13 PM
Yes, I have seen the video, not read the book.  I think it takes "conspiracy" to far ... there is a confluence of contemporary and subsequent opportunism, that leads to the creation of the Christian Nero ... Constantine.  The actions of the Flavians laid the groundwork, on the Roman side ... since it was Josephus himself who proclaimed that General Vespasian was the messiah ... as per contemporary events, he was.  But this was a generation after the "historical" Jesus who is conveniently placed in the past by the Gospel writers.  So if you study a 400 year period from say 50 BCE until 350 CE ... that will give more perspective than just the period immediately after 66 CE to 100 CE.  The Gentiles ultimately had a large impact on what we call Christianity, in ways that Paul couldn't have imagined ... though Paul was pro-Roman, he was also a pacifist ... something that Constantine was not.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: pato15 on July 10, 2015, 07:47:12 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm one who believes in a historical Jesus. That puts me in disagreement with a lot of well-informed people here, so I've always meant to read up on the issue. Now I have a place to start!
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: SGOS on July 10, 2015, 08:09:21 AM
Quote from: pato15 on July 10, 2015, 07:47:12 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm one who believes in a historical Jesus. That puts me in disagreement with a lot of well-informed people here, so I've always meant to read up on the issue. Now I have a place to start!

There's really not that much to disagree with.  When you put your childhood trust in the Bible aside, there is simply no actual historical record of Jesus.  That's all it comes down to.  You can believe he existed or not believe it, because there is no evidence to support either position.  The danger is more about believing he did or didn't exist, rather than just holding back an opinion.

Cases can be made for his non-existence, such as the uncanny similarity he has with all the other God/men of previous mythologies, but that only makes a case.  It doesn't prove anything.  It's more like a warning to more thoughtful folks that they need not go off half cocked with wild unsupportable claims that Jesus was real.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on July 10, 2015, 07:05:29 PM
pato15 ... another way to look at the question.  Does a historical Jesus actually matter, if he is a man, and not a god-man?  Also what do you have against fictional people?  Fictional people, including real people with fictional icing ... have been very influential in history.  The "historical" people we think we know ... even recent ones ... are nothing what we thing they were ... if we examine the evidence closely.  With the distant past, we can make one supposition or another ... but we can't really interview Paul or Augustus ... one should be skeptical of the "history" aka "propaganda" that has been managed to survive the ravages of time.

So for me ... if G-d isn't here and now ... G-d isn't relevant to me.  I couldn't be a theist on the basis of past or future ... fantasy.  Not that I don't love talking about the past or the future ... I just don't take that seriously.  If god-men were real ... they would be here, there, everywhere ... or are they?  Sure, there used to be dinosaurs, and we don't have any running around today ... not like they used to be ... but the birds are here.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Mike Cl on July 10, 2015, 07:16:39 PM
The main reason it matters if Jesus was a man or not, is that when people realize (if that ever happens) that he is not and was not real, then the 'authority' part of their religion can go away.  Then they would have to think about things and not just do it by rote.  Just because Jesus isn't real (and he wasn't real), does not negate his 'teachings' (whichever ones you like to cherry pick) or make them meaningless.  Aesop's teachings are not negated because his stories are fiction. 

US history is replete with figures that we are taught about who are given attributes or actions that are fictional.  George Washington is a classical example.  We all know that he chopped down a cherry tree and did not lie about it.  Except that is not an actual event.  It was invented by a minister (Weems was his name) who wanted to design a character building class for children and invented this story to use in him material.  This was in the 1820's, I think.  If you want a real fun assignment dig through US history and see how much is factual and how much is fictional.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on July 10, 2015, 07:28:29 PM
Aesop was a wise Greek he was.  And stories that were probably made up, were told of him ... same as Homer.  But I have drunk from the spring water of Delphi ... so I can prophesy ;-)  My favorite is the Odyssey, not the Iliad.  I certainly have a daimon like Socrates (we call it a conscience today).  One modern scholar suggested that it was Homer who invented the Greek alphabet, because it is too hard to memorize that much heroic poetry ... at least for most of us.

As it turns out, do you know that the four Gospels conveniently fit, into the "recycled papyrus" journal blank book they made in Byblos?  This may be why there aren't five popular Gospels ... since the way they were made originally, would have been by transcription by wandering merchants.  Not many other people had the opportunity to travel more than five stadia from their birthplace.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on July 11, 2015, 08:59:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z77htOLSBiY

Remember that how the NT came together ... is arbitrary and suited the bishop's politics.  The rest of the books not in the NT, were only lost when Christianity became a Roman state religion.  Otherwise, like all early literature ... it was done by people taking the time to make copies.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: 1liesalot on July 27, 2015, 11:59:46 AM
I refer you all to pretty much everything Bart D Ehrman has written about the Jesus myth.
Title: Re: The Jesus Myth--sources.
Post by: Baruch on July 27, 2015, 08:20:35 PM
i like Ehrman for his disruption of Christian foundation myth ... but he is captured by main line Protestantism ... and so doesn't go far enough.  He is in the tradition of Albert Schweitzer.  I don't accept what we think we know about Nero, as historically accurate, but he was a real person, even if we don't know him well.  Nero's enemies wrote the book on him.  Similarly Jesus' promoters wrote the book on him.  But if you also read the anti-Christian pagan writers ... you get a fuller view.  Archeologically we know only a little about Nero ... and almost nothing about Jesus ... so there is no independent witness.  One can try to get into the head of people who would want to promote a Jesus story, Paul being the clearest example.  Some of his writings appear genuine ... but I think he is telling a very partial story.  We would need to hear from James the Just, and the anti-Pauline apostles ... but we can't (except for maybe the Epistle of James).  If Jesus is a story ... and all people are ... the question is only a matter of how fictional are they (say the legacy of President Reagan for example) ... then we get to ask, why this story feature instead of a different one .. and what is the actual process of composing such works of the imagination.  The Dead Sea scrolls give a very different view of the period, and are actual artifacts from the period, not 200 years later.