Jesus was Myth

[ChristineES]

That's not the case in my experience.

Yeah, it's not the case in my experience, either. (This is the second time I've said this to you in as many days )
There was an old 70s saying about not to assume anything, but I think it would be against the rules to post here.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Actually Christianity grew from Hellenistic Roman societies and practices, given a OT foundation.

Divinity of the Emperor is exactly what these unknown Hellenist paralleled

I am aware of this. The unifying aspect is the fact that Rome is nothing but the extension of the Hellenistic era but they are not entirely the same. Rome had enough key political differences that Greece.

 

[outhouse]

It really isn't funny how poor a 100 BC Yeshu stands up once looked at.

In the other forum this was slammed by the resident scholar DC where he claims this is sort of a perversion of Mead's book .

While Meads title states "Did Jesus live 100 BC?" he goes about it showing how Jesus doesn't fit that description.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The facts are as such. 99.999% of real scholars follow a HJ.

Right. And no true Scotsman ever misbehaves. If he misbehaves, he's not really a Scotsman.

I'm not sure I'm getting through to you, outhouse.

The fact is is 99.9999999% of real scholars dismiss a HJ.

Anyone who embraces the HJ is not a real scholar, so they don't count.

The scholarships in place for a HJ have never been refuted, only their methodology attacked by people who don't understand the facts at hand.

That's a fine opinion. Really it is. It's incorrect, of course, but everyone gets an opinion.

Mythicist attack scholarships because they do not have a decent replacement theory to date, nor is there any kind of consensus in the MJ very very small camp of untrained people.

I myself have presented an irrefutable theory. Why can't you see it?

If you could even make a decent case, id listen. You have not in any forum.

Well, I've made a better case than anyone else has. At least I've done that.

(If you've lost your place, you are now supposed to reply, "No! No you haven't!" )

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And that is the problem at hand.

The problem at hand is the inability of some folks to get comfortable with ambiguity.

Really, anyone who is certain of the historical state of Jesus -- one way or the other -- is just unable to think clearly about historicity.

 

[outhouse]

Attacking how I argue, is all you have.

Because you don't have any evidence or even a position that can refute what I have posted.


Im sorry you hate the current state of scholarships.

 

[outhouse]

The problem at hand is the inability of some folks to get comfortable with ambiguity.

.

You don't even know my stance, if you did, you would know I give very little historicity to the HJ, leaving a very wide path of ambiguity.

Really, anyone who is certain of the historical state of Jesus -- one way or the other -- is just unable to think clearly about historicity

False.

It is stated there are two facts regarding HJ that are a consensus within modern scholarships.

#1 the baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan

#2 his crucifixion on the cross by Romans


Can you refute this? the way I refuted your 100 BC yeshu?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Attacking how I argue, is all you have.

Not how you argue. I'm just shining a light on your certainty.

I know you love the Jesus Game, but I think you might love it even more if you could accept the ambiguity of all historical knowledge. There's no scorecard. No one wins or loses. All we can do is study things, argue, and think it's maybe this way or maybe that way.

We can't know the truth, outhouse. We can only guess at it.

 

[outhouse]

We can't know the truth, outhouse. We can only guess at it.

True.

But plausibility is used.

If you understood my position you would know I hold a minority view myself. Most scholars don't attribute as little as I do, most attribute much more.


The reason the vast majority of scholars don't have a doubt about a HJ is because of the overwhelming evidence were left with that states a man lived and died sticking up for the common man and many people afterwards found this act of extreme importance and described this how ancient people describe theology, and that is through mythology.

There is no other explanation that is even remotely plausible when in comparison to the martyred man at Passover.


Why would people write to Romans and tell them the most important man in the world was not the "son of god" Emperor, but the "son of god" a Peasant Jew?

And that the Jews killed him, not us innocent Romans??????????

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is no other explanation that is even remotely plausible when in comparison to the martyred man at Passover.

It's a fine opinion, outhouse. Mine differs.

 

[steeltoes]

There is no other explanation that is even remotely plausible when in comparison to the martyred man at Passover.

It appears that the story resonates with you, who am I to try and convince of anything otherwise?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have it backwards. Only Jesus historicists behave as you describe above. Jesus mythicists do their homework, are unbiased, and are clearly the best thinkers.

What historians are mythicists?

Really, don't you ever get tired of sliming your opponents? And do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of ignoramus?

I have praised and think very highly of a number of people on this forum I completely disagree with. But people I don't tolerate intellectual dishonesty well, and those who malign entire fields of research they haven't read, "sliming" the scholars producing it, aren't worth responses that merit more the same treatment.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The fact is is 99.9999999% of real scholars dismiss a HJ.

Such as...?

 

[Agnostic75]

What historians are mythicists?

I have praised and think very highly of a number of people on this forum I completely disagree with. But people I don't tolerate intellectual dishonesty well, and those who malign entire fields of research they haven't read, "sliming" the scholars producing it, aren't worth responses that merit more the same treatment.

What do you think of Dr. Robert Price's comments about the Jesus myth in a Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory? Also, what do you think about his article at Robert Price, "Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11" about 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 being an interpolation?

I am not saying that Dr. Price is right, or wrong about the Jesus myth, but I do know that he is a very nice, and very polite person. As you will see below, his position about the Jesus myth is that Jesus may have existed but "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know."

Dr. Price has translated the entire Old Testament from Hebrew to English.

Dr. Price's educational background is as follows:

BA, MTS (1978)
PhD in Systematic Theology (1981)
PhD in New Testament (1993)

From Wikipedia:

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary,[4] is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009), The Case Against the Case for Christ (2010), and The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (2012).

A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003, and has written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by the writer H. P. Lovecraft. He also co-wrote a book with his wife, Carol Selby Price, Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush (1999), on the rock band Rush.

Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of 150 writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, the organizer of a Web community for those interested in the history of Christianity, and sits on the advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance. He is a religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist. He is known in particular for his skepticism about the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, arguing in 2009 that Jesus may have existed but "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What do you think of Dr. Robert Price's comments about the Jesus myth in a Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory? Also, what do you think about his article at Robert Price, "Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11" about 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 being an interpolation?

Price, in the link, argues that we should adopt Walker's approach to textual criticism. He even quotes Walker:
"William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations."

followed by an even lengthier quote just below. He cites two of his studies. Now, there's no way Price could have known this, but Walker actually published a fair amount not just on Paul but (after Price wrote his piece) on 1 Cor. In his study "1 Corinthians 15:29-34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation" Walker pretty much takes the rug out from Price's feet:
"Verses 1-28 proclaim the fact of Christ’s resurrection “as the common ground of all Christian preaching and faith”3 (vv. 1-11), insist that a denial of resurrection negates Christ’s resurrection and thus invalidates Christian faith itself (vv. 12-19), and assert that Christ’s resurrection guarantees the future resurrection of believers and the final destruction of death (vv. 20-28). Verses 35-58 address a possible objection regarding the nature of the resurrection body (vv. 35-53), concluding with a ringing affirmation of victory and an exhortation to faithful endurance (vv. 54-58). The flow of the argument in vv. 1-28, 35-58 is logical, clear, and complete.
This flow is abruptly interrupted, however, by vv. 29-34"

Walker, whom Price argues is the one with the right idea, doesn't just disagree with Price. He uses the logical, syntactic, and narrative structure that "flows" so well through the lines Price claims to be interpolated in order to argue that their flow is later interrupted with what Walker believes to be interpolated lines.

Now, whether or not Walker is right about these lines is another matter. What we do have, however, is Price once again standing on his own because the guy (Walker) who's so critical of our textual evidence he believes every line must be questioned (which would be nice were it possible), applied the method Price states is the correct one and found the lines Price claims are interpolated to be so well-integrated with the narrative structure that he can use them as part of his evidence that later lines are interpolated.

Price isn't a textual critic (which doesn't mean he doesn't have the requisite knowledge to publish in this area; it just isn't one of the areas he specializes in). Walker is a different story. Pauline letters are a specialty of his. He's written a couple dozen studies and one entire monograph (at least, only one that I know of off hand) on interpolations in the Pauline corpus and on textual criticism of the Pauline corpus.

Like Price, he's a Westar Institute Fellow, known for being on the very critical side (vs. those like N. T. Wright or Ben Witherington III). So when he says that these lines are not only unsuspicious, but so well connected that he can use them to argue other lines are interpolations, one has to wonder why nobody but Price can see the apparent discontinuity he does (not even such a critical Pauline scholar as Walker).

Dr. Price

I know who he is and what he's done. He's a qualified scholar and remains so even though he published more fiction (I'm not insulting him; he writes sci. fi. I believe) than scholarship.

However, there are a few peculiarities about his study (apart from the fact that he is alone here). One is that he refers a great to a level of detail which necessitates dealing with clausal structures, syntax, and other nuances of Greek. He does refer to these, but doesn't support his analysis. Walker, for example, cites the BDG, the go-to grammatical reference for NT Greek. Instead, he does things like cite those who have said 50 or so years ago that form-critical analysis runs into problems with these lines. That would be something to deal with, were it not for the fact that by 1997 Kelber could say that the entirety of the form-critical approach had been criticized from all sides. It was already largely abandoned when Price wrote his study except mainly by the few who had supported it when it was "the method" and continued to do so because one isn't likely to a change a central approach to one's field after ~40 years.

So instead of looking of a grammatical or even narrative analysis which deals with the ways in which the Greek language connected clausal structures to one another, we find references to an almost extinct approach. In fact, his entire list of references looks like he went looking for something to support a claim, even if the author disagreed with him (which is true a few cases I know of and some that Price admits in the footnotes) and when he can't find one he'll cite a random (now out of print) textbook like The Logic of Literature. This is not a systematic treatment in the slightest.

But this is the same Price who was criticized by JD Crossan no less (another Westar Institute Fellow, and second perhaps only to Funk) for suggesting we "leapfrog" over evidence. This passage is problematic for him. So he goes out looking to show it is an interpolation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, what he came up with wasn't enough, so he has his odd list of references and has chosen to ignore a great deal of scholarship that would be inconvenient in order to make an argument that is rather key to his theory. Which is more likely, that Walker (the highly critical Pauline textual critic whom Price cites as having the right approach), or Price (whose view depends upon Paul not believing in any earthly Jesus and would be contradicted by these lines)?

 

[Agnostic75]

Which is more likely, that Walker (the highly critical Pauline textual critic whom Price cites as having the right approach), or Price (whose view depends upon Paul not believing in any earthly Jesus and would be contradicted by these lines)?

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding your question, in my very non-professional opinion, I think that Dr. Price is right, but not necessarily because of the reasons that he stated. Rather, assuming that Jesus did not perform any miracles, and did not rise from the dead, I think that the odds are very low that an intelligent person like Paul would have concluded that the "pillars" of the church, some of whom he personally knew, had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. And, I believe that it is very unlikely that Paul mentioned to over 500 Corinthians way over in Greece that they had seen Jesus in Greece after he rose from the dead. I do not think that it is likely that over 500 people could have hallucinations, or visions, of seeing the same person at the same time.

Even if the Corinthians had seen Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead, how could they have recognized him unless they had previously seen him?

To me, 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 is simply too convenient, and too apologetic, to have been written by Paul. I do not see why a clever interpolator could not have adequately mimicked Paul's writing style for a few verses. And to me, the passage seems to be out of place in 1st Corinthians. If you briefly look at all of the chapters, you will see how different they are from 1st Corinthians 15:3-8. The book is mostly preaching, and to do this, and not to do that, and chapters 14, and 16, are nothing like 1st Corinthians 15:3-8. Regarding that passage, all of a sudden, unexpectedly, Paul gets historical, but just for a moment, and then goes back to preaching.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding your question, in my very non-professional opinion

No problem, and I'm not a professional historian, biblical scholar, etc., either.

Rather, assuming that Jesus did not perform any miracles, and did not rise from the dead,

This is an assumptions we should and need to make. However, there is a difference between assuming that Jesus didn't do the impossible and that people didn't believe had done the impossible. We can see this is true just by looking through history even the modern era. In pre-Christian rome, the two largest witch trials in the history of the world resulted in a some total of roughly 5,000 dead (2 trials). Across all of Europe over a period of a few centuries, we get 10x that number. Anthropological literature (esp. going back to when it was ethnology) is replete with examples of people who were widely believed to have done the impossible (miracles, magic, witchcraft, sorcery, etc.). Jewish scriptures during Jesus' day described both certain magical acts by honored kings or prophets, and also condemned to death any who practiced witchcraft/sorcery.

So we can assume Jesus didn't do the impossible, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that people didn't believe he had done the impossible. Historians recorded other acts of magic, tell us of divine heritage, etc. The Torah (in the strictest sense- the 5 books of Moses) have the Pharaoh's magicians turning their staves or staffs into snakes.

This means that from a historical point of view, we cannot make any valid inferences (Price actually says this himself) using the assumption that Jesus did not do the miraculous deeds he was credited with, only that he did not do them (that is, we can assume he didn't do them, but we can't assume people believed this).

Even if the Corinthians had seen Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead, how could they have recognized him unless they had previously seen him?

Paul doesn't say they did. The Greek works translated as things like "delivered" or "handed to" are semi-technical. When one was instructed in some form through memorization, these were the words used to communicate this transmission. Paul is repeating an orally transmitted statement or creed of belief, not a novelty of his own.

I think that the odds are very low that an intelligent person like Paul would have concluded that the "pillars" of the church, some of whom he personally knew, had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. And, I believe that it is very unlikely that Paul mentioned to over 500 Corinthians way over in Greece that they had seen Jesus in Greece after he rose from the dead. I do not think that it is likely that over 500 people could have hallucinations, or visions, of seeing the same person at the same time.

The Greek is quite clearly a creed. Paul isn't simply writing (or dictating) here. He's reciting. This is the type of structure we see in oral societies or primarily oral societies in which instructions regarding practices (from religious to masonry and other crafts), statements of faith, etc., teaching members of the society. It holds true today (hence memorization of the entire Koran in certain parts of the world). "our lord come" is another type of orally transmitted "bit" or "chunk" (information-theoretic terms). Oral societies adopt and utilize communication dynamics that tend towards optimal communication and transmission for particular subjects (rites, rituals, social gatherings, ethics/morals, communal beliefs, etc.) and failed at least in some way almost always when it came to the transmission of specific events.

To me, 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 is simply too convenient, and too apologetic, to have been written by Paul.

It's too formulaic. But that's because it is a formula. That's how information was frequently transmitted all over the world: oral formulas that diminished noise and increased reception. Mnemonics, verse, rhythm, recital, and more were universal tools and are still today.

 

[Agnostic75]

This is an assumptions we should and need to make. However, there is a difference between assuming that Jesus didn't do the impossible and that people didn't believe had done the impossible. We can see this is true just by looking through history even the modern era. In pre-Christian rome, the two largest witch trials in the history of the world resulted in a some total of roughly 5,000 dead (2 trials). Across all of Europe over a period of a few centuries, we get 10x that number.

Anthropological literature (esp. going back to when it was ethnology) is replete with examples of people who were widely believed to have done the impossible (miracles, magic, witchcraft, sorcery, etc.). Jewish scriptures during Jesus' day described both certain magical acts by honored kings or prophets, and also condemned to death any who practiced witchcraft/sorcery.

How could over 500 people in Corinth who had never seen Jesus before believe that they had seen him in one place, at one time? Even if that is plausible, is it probable?

Is there any evidence in the Gospels that Jesus ever travelled to Corinth?

I do not think that we can rule out that it is at least plausible that the passage is an interpolation. Anyway, you and I both agree that the passage was not actual history.

Even though you said that you are not a professional, you apparently have the equivalent knowledge of many people who have a bachelor's degree in theology. I would enjoy seeing you critique some of N.T. Wright's writings. What do you think of William Lane Craig's skills as a theologian? We already know that he is pretty good at philosophy. Of course, as you know, he has a doctorate degree in both of those fields.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What historians are mythicists?

All of them. That's my point. If they believe in the historical Jesus, they aren't really historians. All the real historians dismiss the historical Jesus.

Are you unfamiliar with the no-true-Scotsman argument?

I have praised and think very highly of a number of people on this forum I completely disagree with.

I've never seen that. I'd be as shocked to see you treat a 'mythicist' respectfully as I'd be shocked to see Michael Moore speaking respectfully of Zimmerman.

But people I don't tolerate intellectual dishonesty well....

If you call me intellectually dishonest, I'll call you a liar or insane. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my approach to life.

Yet you have slimed me from the top of my scalp to the soles of my feet.

Why? Well, because I disagree with you about the historical Jesus. No other reason.

...and those who malign entire fields of research they haven't read, "sliming" the scholars producing it, aren't worth responses that merit more the same treatment.

Well, it's true that I don't think much of many biblical scholars, but I hardly think that's a reason to receive raw scorn.

How do you feel about all the parapsychology scholars who insist they have proof that we can communicate with the dead?

It's a serious question. How do you feel about people who don't bow to the opinions of parapsychology scholars but rather tend to consider those scholars biased?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All of them. That's my point. If they believe in the historical Jesus, they aren't really historians. All the real historians dismiss the historical Jesus.

... and are real Scotsmen no doubt.

Your comment is absurd.