The Jesus Myth--sources.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[aitm]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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. 

[Baruch]

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.

[Unbeliever]

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?

[Baruch]

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.

[pato15]

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!

[SGOS]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[1liesalot]

I refer you all to pretty much everything Bart D Ehrman has written about the Jesus myth.