Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[blü 2]

It is far more consistent with a significantly embellished biography of a real person than a completely mythical person. A completely mythical person wouldn't require such convoluted attempts to make him meet the messianic expectations of prophecy such as getting the lower-class Jesus of Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem of the lineage of King David.

So Mrs Mark comes home, and says, "Mark, you're still staring at that blank sheet of papyrus same as two hours ago." Mr Mark says, "True, my dear. I need to write a biography of Jesus, but none of us knows anything about him on earth." "Why don't you get out the scriptures, and make a list of things that you could say were messianic prophecies? Then all you have to do is write a story about Jesus doing one of those, and maybe sort out the order a bit, until you think you've got enough." "My dear, you're a genius!" And he gets out his Tanakh scrolls and starts making the list."
,
Which is simply another way of saying that Mark can be mapped onto passages in the Tanakh, perhaps some ideas of Paul, and the trial of Jesus son of Ananus/Ananias in Josephus, all but completely. And ten years later the author of Matthew, disagreeing with aspects of the Mark's notion of Jesus (such as being born of ordinary Jewish parents and not being divine till his baptism and denying that descent from David is important for an Anointed One, and despairing too much on the cross), but having minimal biographical information of his own, but maybe having a copy of Q he likes, rewrites the story, giving Joseph a fictional genealogy back to David, and angelic messengers to Mary and a flight into Egypt (Exodus 4:19 for the set-up, Hosea 11.1 for the knockdown) ─ and so on.

So while there may have been an historical Jesus (and if there was, his followers, at least by the time of Mark knew almost nothing about him), we can go a long way to accounting for Paul and Mark without one. And once we have Mark and maybe Q we can equally account for the other gospels ─ and why the NT has five incompatible versions of Jesus.

 

[tigrers2019]

I think there is very strong circumstantial evidence proving that this man truly did exist. The ancient Jewish leaders wrote a lot about this 'false teacher' not just a couple of different texts that all Apologists are aware of.

Also, we cannot deny reality with the presence of this man's burial cloth having been made available for scientific study

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Care to enumerate them?

The two that come immediately to mind:

- Lazarus
- the zombie invasion of Jerusalem

 

[Augustus]

So Mrs Mark comes home, and says, "Mark, you're still staring at that blank sheet of papyrus same as two hours ago." Mr Mark says, "True, my dear. I need to write a biography of Jesus, but none of us knows anything about him on earth." "Why don't you get out the scriptures, and make a list of things that you could say were messianic prophecies? Then all you have to do is write a story about Jesus doing one of those, and maybe sort out the order a bit, until you think you've got enough." "My dear, you're a genius!" And he gets out his Tanakh scrolls and starts making the list."
,
Which is simply another way of saying that Mark can be mapped onto passages in the Tanakh, perhaps some ideas of Paul, and the trial of Jesus son of Ananus/Ananias in Josephus, all but completely. And ten years later the author of Matthew, disagreeing with aspects of the Mark's notion of Jesus (such as being born of ordinary Jewish parents and not being divine till his baptism and denying that descent from David is important for an Anointed One, and despairing too much on the cross), but having minimal biographical information of his own, but maybe having a copy of Q he likes, rewrites the story, giving Joseph a fictional genealogy back to David, and angelic messengers to Mary and a flight into Egypt (Exodus 4:19 for the set-up, Hosea 11.1 for the knockdown) ─ and so on.

So while there may have been an historical Jesus (and if there was, his followers, at least by the time of Mark knew almost nothing about him), we can go a long way to accounting for Paul and Mark without one. And once we have Mark and maybe Q we can equally account for the other gospels ─ and why the NT has five incompatible versions of Jesus.

They would have known plenty about him: that which was contained in the oral histories. What they knew may not have reflected what actually happened, but it's more likely an effort in 'creative curation' than a blank page needing to be filled with newly minted fictions.

"History" in general wasn't a modern, academic exercise into establishing objectively true facts like it is in the present, it was a tool for explaining or assisting something in the present. Hagiography is not biography, it is an attempt to create an idealised version of the subject in question, and events in their lives often, very conveniently, reflect issues in the present.

We could say that what people wrote about countless historical figures 'can be accounted for' without them having existed, but the reason why these near-contemporary sources are writing about these people is because they did exist and their existence has some relevance to the present.

When we find purely mythical figures been written about it is long after their purported lives.

 

[Audie]

I think there is very strong circumstantial evidence proving that this man truly did exist. The ancient Jewish leaders wrote a lot about this 'false teacher' not just a couple of different texts that all Apologists are aware of.

Also, we cannot deny reality with the presence of this man's burial cloth having been made available for scientific study

Lots of people exited then. None of them were
named "Jesus" and none of them did the loaves and
fishes, water / wine, came back to life, etc.

Take areal guy, give him a new name, new life
history, make up some feats, maybe include
or dont, a couple of things he really did or said
and what do you have, exactly?

The "shroud" is a very sorry excuse for evidence.
As for "being made available", hardly.

Circumstantial evidence, btw, proves nothing.

Circumstances like the highly improbable execution
story dont help.

In general, the more that supernatural intervention
is invoked to make a story hold together, the less
credible it is. Wouldnt you say?

 

[allright]

If Jesus never existed the Jewish Rabbis would have been screaming it for the last 2000 years

Really get a life

 

[sojourner]

The two that come immediately to mind:

- Lazarus
- the zombie invasion of Jerusalem

Those were both either acts of Jesus, or acts of God surrounding a Jesus event. Jesus is unique in the act of effecting resurrection. It has to do with how people in that culture viewed resurrection as a Divine act or sign.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those were both either acts of Jesus, or acts of God surrounding a Jesus event.

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

Jesus is unique in the act of effecting resurrection. It has to do with how people in that culture viewed resurrection as a Divine act or sign.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

If it happened as literally described, when the resurrected Jesus appeared, the reaction should have been more like "oh, hey - another dead person who's come back to life! There's been a lot of that this week."

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[Audie]

They would have known plenty about him: that which was contained in the oral histories. What they knew may not have reflected what actually happened, but it's more likely an effort in 'creative curation' than a blank page needing to be filled with newly minted fictions.

"History" in general wasn't a modern, academic exercise into establishing objectively true facts like it is in the present, it was a tool for explaining or assisting something in the present. Hagiography is not biography, it is an attempt to create an idealised version of the subject in question, and events in their lives often, very conveniently, reflect issues in the present.

We could say that what people wrote about countless historical figures 'can be accounted for' without them having existed, but the reason why these near-contemporary sources are writing about these people is because they did exist and their existence has some relevance to the present.

When we find purely mythical figures been written about it is long after their purported lives.

A lot of Chinese history is written to show how
it should have been.

 

[Audie]

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.


That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

Did, or is said to have done? For lo, many are the
stories of people being brought back to life.

 

[Audie]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.


Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

If it happened as literally described, when the resurrected Jesus appeared, the reaction should have been more like "oh, hey - another dead person who's come back to life! There's been a lot of that this week."

I used to say that Jesus could have really made
an impression if he'd gone to Pilate and asked,
"Would you like to try again?"

But with all them other zombies about, the effect
would be lost.

 

[blü 2]

They would have known plenty about him: that which was contained in the oral histories. What they knew may not have reflected what actually happened, but it's more likely an effort in 'creative curation' than a blank page needing to be filled with newly minted fictions.

More likely, is the key part of that sentence. There's no clincher for an historical Jesus either way, so I think of it as 50-50.

"History" in general wasn't a modern, academic exercise into establishing objectively true facts like it is in the present, it was a tool for explaining or assisting something in the present. Hagiography is not biography, it is an attempt to create an idealised version of the subject in question, and events in their lives often, very conveniently, reflect issues in the present.

We're on the same page.

We could say that what people wrote about countless historical figures 'can be accounted for' without them having existed, but the reason why these near-contemporary sources are writing about these people is because they did exist and their existence has some relevance to the present.

The case for an historical Jesus would be a lot stronger if there's only been one gospel; for credibility purposes, Mark is the closest to believable as a single document. Yet even if it's correct to say that Q existed, and even if Crossan was correct in thinking it might be possible to work out which if any of Jesus' statements in the gospels may have been either earliest, or authentic, or both, and even if, which I personally doubt, the work of the Jesus Seminar had any value, it still wouldn't provide the missing clincher for an historical Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

They're examples of people who aren't Jesus suddenly coming back to life.

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.

Speaking of how they viewed it, the fact that the Gospels present the resurrection of Jesus as special and unique is a bit of a giveaway that the story is fictional.

That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

 

[Audie]

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.


That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

Some serious wisdom attributed to Jesus,
something that was unknown prior to his time, that
would be impressive.

Is there such? God outta have something!

An awful lot of people including alive today get
credited with miracles.

 

[Augustus]

More likely, is the key part of that sentence. There's no clincher for an historical Jesus either way, so I think of it as 50-50.

That there is no objective proof doesn't mean the balance of probabilities is 50/50 though. Maybe 99% would be more accurate.

We can't prove Socrates, Thales, Pythagoras or numerous other Greek philosophers existed, but that doesn't make their existence 50-50 (which would make half of them purely mythical).

The case for an historical Jesus would be a lot stronger if there's only been one gospel; for credibility purposes, Mark is the closest to believable as a single document.

I'd say the contradictory narratives are better evidence that people are backfitting around a historical figure. The biographies of Muhammad have all kinds of competing information also. For a pure myth you'd at least start with a single narrative, a real person on the other hand requires people to create their own, hence diversity.

For example the 2 different yet equally implausible ways he gets to be in Bethlehem for his birth. A pure myth would just have been from Bethlehem like he was supposed to be with no need to circumvent the fact people knew he was from Nazareth.

Why would you invent a blank-slate Messiah, put him in some irrelevant backwater which serves no purpose, then come up with a cock and bull story to get him back where he was supposed to be from?

Why invent a messiah who misses on so many key features of the messiah, predicts the eschaton, then gets himself killed in an ignominious manner before it arrives despite telling everyone you'd be alive when it happened?

There are numerous things which are highly implausible if we assume he was invented out of thin air, not least the fact that he had many people in diverse regions following his purported teachings within a few decades of his life which, AFAIK would be completely unprecedented for a purely mythical figure.