Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

Dogsgod has asked repeatedly (and I have repeatedly obliged him) for evidence of oral tradition behind the gospels and how it worked. I have given a somewhat broad outline (with some specifics) on both of these topics. I have then supplied references where people can go if they wish to learn more. The reason I have kept things more general is that these are very detailed and complicated issues, and going beyond the basics requires writing a book (journal articles, which are shorter, are capable of greater brevity because they assume the readers possess an in-depth knowledge of the subject). I am not about to write a book on the spot to answer these questions. However, as I know dogsgod depends solely on websites, and will not pick up a scholarly book on this subject, I have decided to go into ONE aspect of orality behind the gospels in detail, in order to demonstrate mainly why I have kept things more general. This (hopefully) will give readers a better understating of the complexity of arguments on oral transmission and tradition in the NT.

This excursus will focus on the parallel passages of Matt. 8.5-13 and Luke 7.1-10.

Before I begin, I need to say a few things about Q. I am sure many here are already familiar with most of the story, but just to make sure I will go over a few things.

It was German biblical scholars who noticed over a century ago that numerous sayings of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (independent of Mark) contained extremely close verbal similarities. For this reasons, scholars purposed that a literary source of Jesus sayings (which was then named Q) must be behind them. The discovery of the gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel itself, obliterated any previous objections of the a priori unlikelihood for a gospel containing only sayings and no story/narrative.

However, prior to the past 50 or so years, and certainly when the Q hypothesis was formed, little was known or had been analyzed on the forms of oral transmission of gospel material. Even today, literary modes of thinking dominate scholars who know very well that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels.

In any case, it is no longer universally assumed (by those who accept the Q hypothesis) that Q is a literary document (see particularly Jeremias, Zur Hypothese einer schriflichen Logienquelle Q in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29, 1980). Further, which sayings in Matthew and Luke actually constitute Q are debated. It is possible that Matthew used some material Luke did not, and vice versa. It is possible that some of the sayings common to both are not from Q at all, but from independent oral traditions. And so on.

In any case, for the purposes of this discussion (particularly as dogsgod has argued that the dominate sources for the gospels are literary) we will assume that Q is a written document which Matthew and Luke used.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

Now to the specifics: Matt. 8.5-13 and Lk 7.1-10.

Mat 8:5 Εἰσελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ εἰς Καπερναοὺμ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν
8:6 καὶ λέγων· Κύριε, ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος.
8:7 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς· ᾿Εγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν.
8:8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη· Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς· ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

8:9 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ, ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.
8:10 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐθαύμασε καὶ εἶπε τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ᾿Ισραὴλ εὗρον.
8:11 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἣξουσι καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν,
8:12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

8:13 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῳ· ὕπαγε καὶ ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι. καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ.
8:14 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρου εἶδε τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτοῦ βεβλημένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν·

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress. And he said to him, I will come and cure him. The centurion answered, Lord, I am not fit to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. For I am also a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, Go, and he goes, and to another, Come, and he comes, and to my slave, Do this, and the slave does it. When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, Amen I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And to the centurion Jesus said, Go; let it be done for you according to your faith. And the servant was healed in that hour.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

Luk 7:1 ᾿Επεὶ δὲ ἐπλήρωσε πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ.
7:2 ῾Εκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλε τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος.
7:3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἀπέστειλε πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ.
7:4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν σπουδαίως, λέγοντες ὅτι ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξει τοῦτο·

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

7:5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν.
7:6 ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψε πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος φίλους λέγων αὐτῷ· Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου· οὐ γὰρ εἰμι ἱκανός ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς·
7:7 διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρός σε ἐλθεῖν· ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.
7:8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος, ἔχων ὑπ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ, ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

7:9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν, καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷὄχλῳ εἶπε· λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ᾿Ισραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον.
7:10 καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες οἱ πεμφθέντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον εὗρον τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα.

When Jesus had completed all his saying in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us. And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not fit to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, Go, and he goes, and to another, Come, and he comes, and to my slave, Do this, and the slave does it. When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, I tell you, not in Israel have I found such faith. When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

The bolded words are either identical either in both form and word used, or in the word used. As can be seen, there is substantial parallel between these two passages. Now, no doubt dogsgod would say, “well, they are both dependent on Q.” In this he would not be alone, as many scholars have placed these two narratives into Q because of their similarity.

However, there are numerous issues to consider here. First, in the earlier reconstructions of Q (e.g. Weisse and Holtzmann) these passages were not included. Second, these passages are obviously narratives, not sayings. The whole point behind Q is that it is a record of Jesus’ sayings, making these passages an odd addition. Even after the obvious redactions by Matthew and Luke, it is clear that the shared material is part of a narrative account, not a parable, apothegm, etc. In other words, it does not fit into the Q material very well.

Furthermore, there are notable differences in the story. Obviously some of these are redactions by the two different gospel authors, who emphasized different parts of the story. Nonetheless, the whole reason to suppose a Q document exists in the first place is SUBSTANTIAL agreement between Matthew and Luke, that makes a literary dependence very likely. Yet although the core of the story is the same, and there are many shared parts between the two, the two accounts contain obviously different material.

What is especially interesting are the syntactical differences between the shared material. One of the primary reasons for supposing literary dependence in shared material is the appearance that one source has actually copied the other. Yet often the similarities in the above story appear more like they were orally transmitted. For example, take the opening of both narratives. Both the narratives begin by stating that Jesus entered Capernaum. They even use the same word (εἰσέρχομα&#953

. However, Matthew uses the aorist participle, while Luke uses a simple aorist indicative. Likewise, while Matthew has Κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς, Luke writes Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου· οὐ γὰρ εἰμι ἱκανός ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς. The words are basically the same, but Luke has added μὴ σκύλλου, and the word order has changed. Minor changes like this run through all the similarities. Any one of them alone would mean nothing, but taken together, they are more similar to orally transmitted material, where such variations are common, then literary.

Finally, although some of the larger variations between the two stories are likely the result of redaction (such as Matthew’s additions to the faithlessness of Israel, where he goes beyond the simple ἐν τῷ᾿Ισραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον, and proceeds to discuss Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the kingdom, apocalyptic prophecy, etc), other variations are better explained by oral retellings (which keep the core the same, even maintaining verbatim transmission for short and important statements). For example, Luke’s addition of διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρός σε ἐλθεῖν into the centurion’s statement serves no theological purpose, does not emphasis any part of Luke’s account, and doesn’t appear redactional. It appears more as if the tradition Luke is depending on included this statement, and Matthew’s did not. The substantial variation in terminology and syntax (and the lack of virtually any exact verbal parallels) in Matthew and Luke’s description of the servants illness and the presentation of the problem to Jesus also tell against literary dependence.

I will now put all of these points in a simple list for the sake of clarity:

1) The two accounts are narratives, which are supposed to be absent from the “sayings gospel” Q.
2) The two accounts contain substantial parallels, making it obvious that in some way they draw upon the same tradition.
3) A number of syntactical and verbal variations even within the parallels make an oral basis for the accounts more likely.
4) Variation in the narratives that is unlikely to be redactional is likewise a mark of oral retellings, where the core and particular parts are identical or virtually identical, but variation in other aspects is common.

In short, it would appear that even if Q is a literary document, this is one of many examples where it is more likely Matthew and Luke are drawing on oral traditions than on literary.

I will repeat that the above is hardly the only evidence either for the nature of the oral tradition behind the gospels or its existence. It is simply an example of the type of analysis used to determine literary vs. oral dependence, which I have provided to illustrate not only the complexity in the issues but also the methods used in analysis. I will also point out that even the detail I have engaged in above is not very thorough, and were I attempting to publish this argument (which has been discussed in publications more than once in some form or another) in an article the depth and detail would be greater.

Imagist · Apr 21, 2009

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

This is true for some, but not all, of Jung's ideas.

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

I think you're looking at this more narrowly than I am. In a broader sense, your example still shows an underlying similarity in the human condition in the need to record history.

Even in a narrower sense, this underlying human condition isn't refuted by your argument. Jungian archetypes are generally attributed to evolutionary factors, and the ability to find one of the "only so many ways" to record the past certainly is an evolutionary factor.

Jung's concept of archetypes is so general that it's nearly impossible to say that it is incorrect or inapplicable. The real problem is that this general nature makes their usefulness limited. But I do think that comparing Jesus and Krishna is within their scope of usefulness.

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.

Agreed, there is no evidence for a source relationship.

On the other hand, many of those who downplay similarities between Jesus and pagan gods do so arguing that the stories of Jesus' resurrection, ascension, etc. are are completely original and therefore inspired by God or real events. So if we were questioning each other's motives for comparison or non-comparison, I could accuse you of an equally preposterous motive.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

Imagist said:
This is true for some, but not all, of Jung's ideas.

Jung's concept of archetypes is so general that it's nearly impossible to say that it is incorrect or inapplicable. The real problem is that this general nature makes their usefulness limited. But I do think that comparing Jesus and Krishna is within their scope of usefulness.

While this is an interesting conversation, and I would be delighted to carry it on elsewhere, it is unfortunately unrelated to the topic, as neither of us is arguing Jesus is purely based on myth.

On the other hand, many of those who downplay similarities between Jesus and pagan gods do so arguing that the stories of Jesus' resurrection, ascension, etc. are are completely original and therefore inspired by God or real events.

Not necessarily (certainly, as a non-Christain, that isn't my motive). For example, the classicist Jan Bremmer demonstrated that pagan myth changed after and in response to Christianity with the appearence of savior deities such as Attis and Mithras (Rise and Fall of the Afterlife). Another historian of ancient history, G. W. Bowerstock, likewise points out numerous ways in which it was the pagans who borrowed from Christianity (Hellenism in Late Antiquity). Other scholars have approached the matter in the other direction, showing that lack of significant parallels between paganism prior to christianity and early Christianity. And so on.

Imagist · Apr 21, 2009

It seems kind of obvious that once Christianity was codified it would exert more influence over other religions than vice-versa, since having a widely-disseminated written statement of beliefs makes those beliefs more resistant to change. Since most pagan traditions were not so codified, it was more possible for variations which borrowed from Christianity to flourish.

I'd like to note that "paganism/paganists" aren't the same as "pagan/pagans". The former refers to a specific group of religious traditions, while the latter is used within Christian circles to refer to non-Christians. I'm not trying to condescend; it's just that I don't know if your usage of "paganism" in the previous post was intentional.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

Imagist said:
It seems kind of obvious that once Christianity was codified it would exert more influence over other religions than vice-versa, since having a widely-disseminated written statement of beliefs makes those beliefs more resistant to change.

Absolutely true. Also, as paganism lacked any coherent theology/philosophy within its mythic traditions and cults (obviously there were pagan philosophers) and christianity from the begining incorporated a synthesis of morality, theology, and increasingly philosophy, it became difficult for paganism to compete (hence the tendency towards monotheistic interpretation of the multiple pagan deities by pagan intellectuals).

I'd like to note that "paganism/paganists" aren't the same as "pagan/pagans". The former refers to a specific group of religious traditions, while the latter is used within Christian circles to refer to non-Christians. I'm not trying to condescend; it's just that I don't know if your usage of "paganism" in the previous post was intentional.

To clarify, within the scope of the current discussion, any references to pagans or paganism refers to either the people or the religious cults/traditions of all non-Christians and non-Jews living under the Greek or Roman empire (excepting the celts and germanic tribes, as often enough we know next to nothing about their beliefs).

dogsgod · Apr 21, 2009

dogsgod said:
.

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

On second thought, perhaps it's self evident.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

dogsgod said:
On second thought, perhaps it's self evident.

Self evidently wrong. I already addressed the your little meaningless snippet. In addition, I have now both given a general overview of orality behind the new testament, as well as a in-depth analysis of a specific example.

Perhaps you would care to address those?

dogsgod · Apr 21, 2009

.

An astute observation, or just another few lines from a master of the obvious?

The core of the Jesus story is the Son of man, who has been hidden from the beginning of time, who will be revealed when the end of the ages is near, and who will serve as the judge of men and angels when the earth is destroyed and the New Jerusalem of heaven comes as the place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations where death will be abolished and the righteous live with the Son of man for ever and ever. That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus, whose story is not fundamentally different from a dozen or so other stories from the same time and place, other than the specific name of the savior and the method of his death.
Why was the mode of death crucifixion in the early Jesus story? Because this was the mode of death suffered by the people under the occupation of Rome from which they sought deliverance (He is suffering what we are suffering in order to take our suffering away).
Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion

dogsgod · Apr 21, 2009

Oberon, good, you finally provided a line of reasoning for your example of an oral tradition found within the gospels.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

dogsgod said:
.

An astute observation, or just another few lines from a master of the obvious?

Another observation by someone not acquainted with the issues he is talking about. What is his educational background? Where is his detailed analysis of all the scholarship he ignores? etc.

That is who Christ is and that is who Jesus is, and that figure is a purely mythical character that existed long before the emergence of the specific story of Jesus

Where is this existence documented? Or are you referrin to that awful "dying godman" from pagan myth as a source for the gospels, which I fully refuted here

, whose story is not fundamentally different from a dozen or so other stories from the same time and place, other than the specific name of the savior and the method of his death.

I have already shown in my "Myth of the Jesus Myth all of the problems with statement. What SPECIFIC texts can you point to from pagan myth to show these "pre-existent" Jesus's?

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

Again you are relying on your google skills to find baseless websites. How can you judge their accuracy when you haven't ready any scholarhip on the subject, and have made so many basic errors?

You asked me for references. I have them you and you resented them and dismissed them because you don't have any.

You asked me form my reasoning, and not only did I give a general outline, and took a sample from the evidence and went into it in detail.

You have yet to respond, although you asked for these things.

I have complied with your requests both for references and explanations.

Now how about addressing mine? What scholarship have you read which makes you at all qualified to judge those websites? Where is your response to my last post on orality. Or will you finally admit you simply haven't done the research and don't know enought to make valuable contributions here?

dogsgod · Apr 21, 2009

Oberon said:
Another observation by someone not acquainted with the issues he is talking about. What is his educational background? Where is his detailed analysis of all the scholarship he ignores? etc.

I don't know. Where all that evidence is for an historical Jesus appears to be a well guarded secret.

Oberon · Apr 21, 2009

dogsgod said:
I don't know. Where all that evidence is for an historical Jesus appears to be a well guarded secret.

Actually it isn't. It's been published by probably thousands of authors in millions of pages. However, the R. G. Price doesn't seem to have read, or if he has he certainly doesn't address it.

The point is, if you wish to make an argument that goes against the grain of a century of scholarship including some of the brightest minds and most comprehensive work available, you have to show where there errors are in their publications. Your websites never do this. They never address the bulk of scholarship (probably because they haven't read it). That is a serious failing.

dogsgod · Apr 21, 2009

Apparently there was a mound of evidence in the form of scholarship on which someone left a copy of the publication AWAKE on top of. When the cleaners came in at night they thought it was all a pile of trash and threw the whole works into the garbage. You can't blame them, they were just trying to do their job.

Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Worshipper of Athe.

Well-Known Member

Worshipper of Athe.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member