Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Christian Pilgrim]

I thought it was about time for this debate to get its injection of crazy.

Christian Pilgrim, by what stretch of the imagination is your post related to the topic at hand, or even to the thing you quoted?

I'm sorry I just jumped in, but I was responding to the OP. And yes many believe in a mythical Jesus (IMO).

 

[dogsgod]

You haven't argued anything. You pointed to one website which badly argued that all of Mark was dependent upon the OT. I showed that the author of the websites goes well beyond the evidence, and I went into extensive detail in one case (even analyzing the greek used in the two relevent passages) to show the author made comparisons on basically a single word.

I then asked you to cite actual scholarship. You proceeded to misrepresent Crossan and Mack by using them as evidence. I told you that ALL scholars acknowledge that the gospels used the OT to help them understand Jesus, and that neither Crossan nor Mack deny the historical Jesus, nor do the argue the gospels are completely dependend upon the OT, nor do the argue that there is no oral tradition behind the gospels. I then quoted from both specifically to show exactly how dishonest you were being.

I never made a single of these claims to the contrary, yet you claim that I do. I quoted a few of Crossan's references to instances where gospel writers borrowed from Hebrew scriptures, but I never argued to what extent they had anything to do with the historicity of Jesus. Otherwise I think it self evident that Christianity is reliant on a written tradition. Your baseless accusations are part of why I question your comprehension. I honestly don't think you understand why you believe the things you believe.

 

[Oberon]

I don't have any links online unfortunately.

I wasn't looking for online links. I was looking for references to scholarship.

I have read a few books on the synoptic gospels and the historical Jesus

For example?

but my main knowledge on the subject comes from long discussion on the subject with my father, who is a college professor with his Ph.D. in Religious studies (I think his particular focus is Judaism and Early Christianity).

Unfortunately, as I don't know who your father is (I may have heard of him, even read him if he has published in major journals or has a book out), it is hard to go from here.

In any case, the literature written on the subject doesn't really have much to offer beyond opinion on the primary sources anyway.

Not exactly true. For example, many scholars have used data gleaned from sociology and anthropology to further our understanding. And in any case, unless you have studied the primary sources intently (and I don't mean just the bible, but classical literature, early christian literature, judaic literature, etc) then you certainly need secondary sources, particularly if you can't read these sources in their original languages.

How does a statement that the transmission of the gospels was affected by bias from two warring groups convince you that it was more reliably transmitted?

It wasn't your statement, which isn't truly accurate anyway, but what it reveals. Had you been correct, and the gospels were merely products of "warring groups" we would expect to find Jesus saying something concerning circumcision. The fact that the Jesus tradition contains no such references tells against the supposition that early Christians freely put words into Jesus' mouth to support their views.

This is true, but it's worth noting that by the time the synoptic gospels were written, the Paulean group already had an advantage over the Petric group.

This isn't necessarily accurate, and in any case their remained very Jewish sects of christianity that would have had a problem with this issue (e.g. the ebionites)

It's possible that the Petric group had dropped the circumcision issue (which was obviously unpopular anyway) due to the fact that they had bigger fish to fry. The entire Jewish law was in danger of rejection by Christians, so the specific issue of circumcision was put on the back burner in favor of the larger argument.

Your evidence for this is what exactly?

The disagreement during Jesus' life is of little relevance in comparison to the disagreements during the time when the gospels were written.

The circumcision issue took place only AFTER Jesus' life, and was a central issue for the earliest Christians, yet no one puts such words in his mouth. This is true even of Paul, who cites commandments from the Lord (which he distinguishes from his own) but never says that Jesus said anything about circumcision. For Luke at least (who records the conflict in Acts) you would expect (if the early Christians were prone to freely attributing things to Jesus to resolve conflicts) it to be mentioned here.

This is not to say that later problems were NEVER retrojected back onto the life of Jesus, but the gospels show an historical awareness of the pre-Easter Jesus, and there are many points where it is clear later post-Easter theological issues have been left out of the pre-Easter.



A few things:

1. Oral transmission is unquestionably less reliable than written transmission

That is not exactly true for the ancient period, for the following reasons:

1) The ancients in general were more skeptical of written sources that oral reports from witnesses, or from personal experience

2) Much early writing, including ancient history and biography, relied on oral modes to communicate.

3) Due to the lack of written sources, ALL ancient historicans relied either partly or centrally on orally transmissions of some sort. For this reason, all of these written traditions are dependent (at least somewhat) on oral transmission, making them only as accurate as those traditions

so your claim that the oral model of transmission makes it more reliable is simply wrong.

First, I would suggest that before you claim I am wrong, you take a look through my posts in this thread, and the scholarship I reference. You may well not be familiar with it. Second, I was not claiming that oral tradition is MORE reliable than written, only that it is not always unreliable. We know (not only from studies of ancient models of transmission but also from modern research into illiterate cultures) that oral accounts CAN very well be transmitted verbatim with zero error. I am not saying that the Jesus tradition was transmitted with this degree of accuracy, but I am arguing that it was fairly controlled (both formally and informally).

Lucky for you, it's likely that the transmission wasn't entirely oral (most likely the synoptic gospels are abridgements of a longer gospel known as Q

Not all scholars agree that Q is a written gospel. It is also not known whether it is really an abridgement. The extent of Q (and even its existence, which is accepted by a wide consensus of scholars, but nonetheless has noteworthy critics) is hotly debated.

2. Given that life expectancy was much lower then than it is now, 70 years might represent as much as 3-5 generations. Given this it is very unlikely that the accounts are double or even triple hearsay.

Not necessarily true. For example, Mark was likely written c. 70 AD, and Matthew and Luke around 10 years later or so. In other words, it is entirely plausible (and there is a decent amount of evidence for this possibilty) that the authors were either disciples of eyewitnesses. John is a peculiar case (for a number of reasons) but as I personally think that even if John had reliable access to the Jesus tradition, I think he "innovated" in his account far more than the synoptics.

Death, resurrection, and ascension are no less common in pagan myth than death and rebirth.

Can you point to these examples (I am not saying there are none, but I think you are mistaken here).

Even if they were, the differences are minor and not really enough to claim that the ideas weren't taken from other myths.

The differences are very major. See my post on "The Myth of the Jesus Myth" for a bit of information, and I will provide more later.

Furthermore, the claims of virgin births, miracles, resurrection, and ascension should make it clear more than anything else that the gospels are unreliable.

Again, I recommend reading back to my earlier posts. Much of ancient history contains myth, miracles, etc, from Herodotus to Livy and so on. Obviously, these parts of their works are not historical, but that is the nature of ancient history.

Where are you studying? I find it highly questionable (although not impossible) that a credible university will be giving you a Ph.D. for claiming that the gospels were a reliable source on the historical Jesus.

Than I would say you haven't read enough scholarship in this area. There have been numerous scholary works already claiming this, often published by academic presses or in peer-reviewed journals. You can see many of my citations if you review my posts.

However, I will provide a few here as well:

On the oral tradition behind the gospels (as I have repeatedly discussed), see particularly

Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition edited by Henry Wansborough
Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity by Birger Gerhadsson
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham
Jesus Remembered (volume 1 of Christianity in the Making) by James D. G. Dunn
Jesus als Lehrer by Rainer Riesner
Story as History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History by Samuel Byrskog

"Informal Conrolled Oral Tradition and they Synoptic Gospels" Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991) and "Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels" Expository Times 106 (1995) by Kenneth Bailey.

On the Gospels as bioi/vitae (ancient biographies) as I have argued, see particularly

The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Aune
What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Robert Burridge
Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst by Dirk Frickenschmidt
"Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sorts fo Similarities with Sets of Differences" Journal for the Study of the New Testament by F. G. Downing


I do not give information over the internet that would give my identity away. However, if you would like to PM me, I will give you more information than I will here.

 

[Oberon]

I never made a single of these claims to the contrary, yet you claim that I do. I quoted a few of Crossan's references to instances where gospel writers borrowed from Hebrew scriptures, but I never argued to what extent they had anything to do with the historicity of Jesus.

I asked you to provide scholarship supporting that crappy website you referenced. You quoted Mack and Crossan, making it appear they were your supports. They aren't, and they disagree with your claim the gospels are based on the OT and that oral tradition does not lie behind the gospels.

Otherwise I think it self evident that Christianity is reliant on a written tradition.

Yet you haven't done any of the research to make such a claim. You rely soley on google rather than scholarship.

 

[Enoch07]

You have been critically hit by a wall of text! (You lose 700hps!)

 

[Imagist]

It's quite clear that you have done more research on this subject than I have. While I still disagree with your conclusions, I will bow to your secondary-source knowledge for now. It does seem that we don't disagree as much as I had initially thought. I thought at first that you were arguing for the inerrancy of scripture, which it is clear now you weren't.

For the issue of death, resurrection and ascension, see Krishna, who was shot with an arrow when he was mistaken for a deer. He died, then resurrected and ascended into heaven (there are other traditions about how he died or disappeared which disagree with this one). That's all of the examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I am sure I have come across at least one other story (if I remember correctly, Anansi the spider resurrects his master, in one story).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If anyone has failed to address scholarship it is you. All you ever do is allude to this "mountain of scholarship" but you have yet to provide an argument and back it up with any references to this scholarship.
I have no reason to believe that you have read much of anything at all other than what has been preached by religious leaders for the last two thousand years.

Look, I said this some pages ago...When we engage in (my scholar vs. your scholar) mentality it can get us nowhere. We, at this point, will not be able to prove or disprove a historical Jesus. There is no mountain of evidence to show he existed nor is there any showing that, assuming one does "believe" he existed, that anything attributed to him as to what he said or did (in the bible) can be proven.

 

[logician]

The mistake made by believers in his historicity is the fundamental one, his existence is taken for granted and must be disproven. That's unscientific and totally biased.

 

[dogsgod]

Look, I said this some pages ago...When we engage in (my scholar vs. your scholar) mentality it can get us nowhere. We, at this point, will not be able to prove or disprove a historical Jesus. There is no mountain of evidence to show he existed nor is there any showing that, assuming one does "believe" he existed, that anything attributed to him as to what he said or did (in the bible) can be proven.

Fair enough, I'm tired of his antics anyways.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fair enough, I'm tired of his antics anyways.

True...It's just we are all at the point of (scholars say this and that...and they ALL believe this and that)...and truthfully if one really researches the claims made by the gospels (4 gospels) they'd find most of it can not and has not been proven (in regards to the man Yeshua). There's no information, that I'm aware of, on his birth. There's a huge gap in his years growing up (accordingly to the bible). The bulk of information on him comes solely from the bible and only expounds on and spans a couple years of his life. Most of us have conceded to the acceptance that there (could have been) a man named Yeshua. He might even have been an activist. The fact is...no one can prove this. There's simply no proof of his existence and no evidence, that I have seen, that any contemporary knew him and wrote about him. I've seen no information Herod had it out for him and all the 2yr old an younger, despite what the supposed historical book (the bible) says. The scholars who suggest his existence are giving us their opinion based on educated guesses. I think we call that a hypothesis.

 

[dogsgod]

Dirty Penguin, I totally agree with you, and logician as well. The fact that his existence is the cause of so much discussion is telling in itself.

 

[dogsgod]

It's quite clear that you have done more research on this subject than I have. While I still disagree with your conclusions, I will bow to your secondary-source knowledge for now. It does seem that we don't disagree as much as I had initially thought. I thought at first that you were arguing for the inerrancy of scripture, which it is clear now you weren't.

What's clear is; he's arguing for the inerrancy of oral tradition!

 

[Oberon]

Look, I said this some pages ago...When we engage in (my scholar vs. your scholar) mentality it can get us nowhere.

That's true, and it would be relevent if that was actually the debate going on between those who believe that Jesus was a myth. It isn't. Those who argue for a mythical Jesus have been COMPLETELY unable to cite scholarship AT ALL who argue that Jesus was not historical (the closest so far to this has been Richard Carrier, who while not a biblical or NT scholar is nonetheless an ancient historian. However, doesn't seem to argue against a historical Jesus, nor has he really concentrated on that specific subject yet).

In otherwords, this has not been a debate between "my references to scholarship" vs "your references." Both logician and dogsgod have consistently failed to cite ANY SCHOLARSHIP whatsoever supporting their views, and neither have any research at all besides a few bad books by non-experts and sensationalist websites.



The type of debate you describe would be more the type of debate which would ensue if, say, Imaginist or Jayhawker Soul and I were debating, because while all three of us appear to believe a historical Jesus existed (I think Imaginist will acknowledge that much), we also disagree on exactly how reliable the tradition behind the gospels is. For example, although I do not know specifically what Imaginist has read, I am sure he can point to scholarship (and his father, who is a scholar), which argues that the gospels are very unreliable sources for Jesus' life. I can point to other scholarship arguing differently, and then it would quickly turn into the type of debate you descibe.

However, so far that hasn't happened between the mythicists (primarily dogsgod and logician) and others, because they haven't read any scholarship.

 

[Oberon]

What's clear is; he's arguing for the inerrancy of oral tradition!

No I am not. Overall accuracy is not inerrancy, although I realize such distinctions are difficult for you.

The mistake made by believers in his historicity is the fundamental one, his existence is taken for granted and must be disproven. That's unscientific and totally biased.

How would you know what scholars who argue for historicity "take for granted"? You haven't read any. All you have read is a few websites and you are almost entirely dependent on Freke and Gandy. You are hardly in a position to make the above claim.

Those who have argued for a historical Jesus do not take it for granted, they examine the evidence in detail and find overwhelming support for Jesus' historicity. You (or dogsgod) wouldn't know, because you haven't read the requisite scholarship.

 

[Oberon]

True...It's just we are all at the point of (scholars say this and that...and they ALL believe this and that)...

We are not at that point. The only people who have been able to cite scholarship in support of their claims have been those NOT arguing for historicity. I am still waiting for scholarly references from dogsgod or logician backing their claims, and the dozens of pages in this thread they have yet to cite a single one. Your statement isn't true.

There's no information, that I'm aware of, on his birth. There's a huge gap in his years growing up (accordingly to the bible).

True, but that is meaningless when it comes to historicity of ancient persons. What is important is what we can say about his mission and later life. And even the most skeptical examinations of the gospels (e.g. Bultmann) believe that a historical Jesus lies behind the gospels, and we can know something about his mission.

The fact is...no one can prove this.

This is a meaningless statement. No one can PROVE anything from ancient history (again, this is why we have holocaust deniers). All we can do is say what is probable. The evidence for a historical Jesus is very great (more than most ancient people), even for experts who don't think the tradition behind the gospels is reliable.

There's simply no proof of his existence and no evidence, that I have seen, that any contemporary knew him and wrote about him.

Again, that is true of many, many people from ancient history. Paul is a contemporary who knew those who worked closely with Jesus. Both Josephus and Paul show that the brother of Jesus (James) was operating in the 50s and 60s, and both would be in a position to know. Even without the gospels, the fact that Jesus was historical is established, although we would know very little about him.


Also, there is a great deal of evidence that the gospels go back in some way to a historical Jesus.

You keep making claims like this (there is no way to prove any of it), but what have you read on the subject which enables you to determine that the gospels, paul, and josephus can be rejected wholesale, and the Jesus they discuss as "possible" at best?

 

[dogsgod]

.


In my opinion the following is a very interesting, brief, concise, and thought provoking perspective:


"Whether one wants to believe in the existence of some real person within the story of Jesus or not, it really cannot be said that the story of Jesus is not based on mythology, i.e. that mythology is at the core of the story. That mythology is Jewish mythology, but mythology nonetheless. During the last few hundred years liberal Christians and secular historians have increasingly dismissed the obviously mythical elements of the Jesus story, viewing them as secondary to some real historical figure. These Christians and historians have often dismissed things such as the claims of the coming end of the world, the many miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection. The problem, however, is that these are the real story elements around which the rest of the story is built. These are the central elements. This is the core of the story."

Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

Constructive comments appreciated.


.

 

[Oberon]

.



Constructive comments appreciated.

"Whether one wants to believe in the existence of some real person within the story of Jesus or not, it really cannot be said that the story of Jesus is not based on mythology, i.e. that mythology is at the core of the story.

Actually, the truth is just the opposite. The core of the story is a Jewish man who took on the role of apocalyptic prophet, wisdom teacher, etc. The mythic elements have been grafted on to that historical core.

During the last few hundred years liberal Christians and secular historians have increasingly dismissed the obviously mythical elements of the Jesus story, viewing them as secondary to some real historical figure.

Very true. But they have done this not without reasons. ALL ancient history contains obviously unhistorical information, and most contain mythic elements.

These Christians and historians have often dismissed things such as the claims of the coming end of the world, the many miracles of Jesus,

Many historians have not dismissed that Jesus claimed in some sense that the world as the Jews knew it was going to come to an end, and that the kingdom of God would commence. Schweitzer was one of the first to argue that Jesus preached the apocalyptic coming of the kingdom, and when it didn't come, Jesus attempted to force it, and died for his attempts.

Also, many scholars (including J. D. Crossan, Morton Smit, J. P. Meier, N. T. Wright, etc) have argued that the miracles/wonders/healings of Jesus have a historical core (this does not mean they argue he actually worked miracles, simply that he performed feats those around him interpreted as miracles).

The problem, however, is that these are the real story elements around which the rest of the story is built. These are the central elements. This is the core of the story."

Not true (although there is a grain of truth here). Certainly, at the core of Christianity is the resurrection (and divinity) of Jesus. Obviously the gospels reflect this, but at the core (and bulk) of the gospels is the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

I thought at first that you were arguing for the inerrancy of scripture, which it is clear now you weren't.

I am not. And our disagreement about the general reliability of the Jesus tradition is debated in scholarship as well, so I have no problem if you don't agree. The problem I have is with the mythicists who argue against any historical Jesus.

For the issue of death, resurrection and ascension, see Krishna, who was shot with an arrow when he was mistaken for a deer. He died, then resurrected and ascended into heaven (there are other traditions about how he died or disappeared which disagree with this one)

When you look at the two texts and compare, the similarities almost disappear entirely (or are at least very superficial):
From the Mahabhara:

""A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking Keshava, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Keshava. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour. When he reached Heaven, Vasava and the twin Ashvinis and Rudra and the Adityas and the Vasus and the Viswedevas, and Munis and Siddhas and many foremost ones among the Gandharvas, with the Apsaras, advanced to receive him. Then, O king, the illustrious Narayana of fierce energy, the Creator and Destroyer of all, that preceptor of Yoga, filling Heaven with his splendour, reached his own inconceivable region. Krishna then met the deities and (celestial) Rishis and Charanas, O king, and the foremost ones among the Gandharvas and many beautiful Apsaras and Siddhas and Saddhyas. All of them, bending in humility, worshipped him. The deities all saluted him, O monarch, and many foremost of Munis and Rishis worshipped him who was the Lord of all. The Gandharvas waited on him, hymning his praises, and Indra also joyfully praised him."

This doesn't sound anything like the gospels, unless you are arguing for some sort of "universal mythicism" from Jungian psychologoy (echoed in Campbell). However, I find that such superficial similarities are better explained by the fact that when difference cultures talk about similar subjects, there are bound to be points of comparisons in the texts by the very nature of the topic being discussed (i.e. religious texts are going to sound religious, therefore there will be points of comparison).

 

[Imagist]

I am not. And our disagreement about the general reliability of the Jesus tradition is debated in scholarship as well, so I have no problem if you don't agree. The problem I have is with the mythicists who argue against any historical Jesus.

Agreed, I think it's pretty certain that Jesus did exist. I don't know how much we can say about what he did, but sources I consider more accurate, though less informative, namely some of Paul's letters, presuppose the existence of Jesus as a person.

This doesn't sound anything like the gospels, unless you are arguing for some sort of "universal mythicism" from Jungian psychologoy (echoed in Campbell). However, I find that such superficial similarities are better explained by the fact that when difference cultures talk about similar subjects, there are bound to be points of comparisons in the texts by the very nature of the topic being discussed (i.e. religious texts are going to sound religious, therefore there will be points of comparison).

What is the difference between your idea of points of comparison based in similar topics and Jung's archetypes based in universal mysticism? (I've color-coded the terms I am comparing to make the point of my question a bit clearer.)

 

[Oberon]

What is the difference between your idea of points of comparison based in similar topics and Jung's archetypes based in universal mysticism? (I've color-coded the terms I am comparing to make the point of my question a bit clearer.)

Jung, and those who follow him, argue that within the human psyche there exists the basis for the myths of all cultures. Those that follow him use that idea when making comparisons. My problems with this idea are:

1. I think that psychology has pretty much rejected Jung, and I don't find his theories convincing in general

2. I think that many of the comparisons is due not to similarities in content/thought but in religious language. In other words, the reason that so many cultures have points of comparison in religious stories/myths/etc is not do to an underlying similarity in the human condition, but because humans use particular language when discussing particular subjects. As another example, several cultures independently invented a genre which might be called "history" in the sense that it seeks to record "accurate" records of the past. However, there are many differences in the methods, literary techniques, etc used in the various cultures. There are also many similarities. These similarities should not be explained because of some universal underlying historical sense, but because there are only so many ways one can attempt to record the past. The points of comparision are more due to the common subject than the commonality in the myths/beliefs themselves

3. Many of those who point to similarities between Jesus and pagan gods do so arguing that the gospels used these myths as a basis for Jesus death and resurrection (even to the point where they posit the whole story is really a Jewish version of pagan myth, with no underlying historical Jesus, however far removed). The problem here is that evidence of dependence on such myths by the gospels is completely lacking. All the similaries are too superficial, and taken from to many different myths, combining too many different cults, etc.