-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus was Myth
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that seems most likely. Mark started something which caught fire. Matthew and Luke are obvious (theological) revisions of gMark, and GJohn doesn't count historicaly anymore than the Book of Mormon counts historically. Folks have been furiously writing gospels ever since Mark.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
roger1440 said:
My first reply to you was about the number of Christians in the world, not the number of Jews. Are you implying that they were converted Gentile Christians?
roger1440 said:
roger1440 said:
But that does not make any case that Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in the world in 100 A.D. is wrong.
roger1440 said:
roger1440 said:
But that does not make any case that Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in the world in 100 A.D. is wrong.
Last edited:
Here's another:
"The single most striking thing about early Christianity is its speed of growth."
Regarding Pliny in particular, Wright not only talks about him but quotes him here:
"This cult [Christianity] was, however, spreading rapidly:
A great many individuals of every age and class, both men and women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too wich are infected through contact with this wretched cult
As a result, according to Pliny, pagan practice, too, has taken on a new lease of life...Almost every phrase of this remarkable letter, and indeed of Trajan's reply to it, sheds such light on early Christianity and on pagan perceptions of it that it is tempting to spend longer examining it than is here possible. For our present purposes we not the following. First, it is clear that Christianity was already widespread in Asia Minor, beyond the area evangelized by Paul in the early days, and that, although Pliny can assume that serious Christians must be punished, probably with death, there was no established procedure, no civil servants' rule of thumb, for how to go about it. This indicates that previous persecutions by Roman Authorities had probably been sporadic and occasional rather than systematic." A few pages later, Wrigh goes on to quote Tacitus on Nero's knowledge of, and use of (as a scapegoat), Christians in 64 CE. This is all from vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. The 3rd volume provides some excellent information about the views of the after life in the ancient world, and then ceases to be a historical work.
Wright, for all of his knowledge, acumen, and incredibly detailed research, (it was he who found Bailey's "Informal and Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels" in a little known journal Asia Journal of Theology bringing to light a fresh perspective to the burgeoning NT scholarship on orality after the failure of Formgeschichte), and literary skill, does not possess the capacity of others (e.g., J. P. Meier) to sufficiently divorce himself from his personal beliefs.
In his 3rd volumes, he argues that because we cannot provide any plausible historical explanation for why Jesus' followers proclaimed that he rose from the dead as the messiah, it must be true. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock remarks at one point that once one has ruled out all possible explanations, whatever remains, however, implausible, is true. That's a great line, but this is why it fails: one cannot go from "we have no good historical explanation for the origins of Christianity" to "Jesus must have risen from the dead", because even the most ridiculous account, e.g., The Jesus Mysteries, is more probable than that the son of YHWH rose from the dead.
However, Wright certainly does not think that early Christianity was some unknown, barely established group by the time of Pliny.
I've read very few of Pliny's letters outside of those in question. But one doesn't need Wright to see that Pliny expresses a concern about a problem that has been ongoing for some time.
There is no reason to suspect that Tacitus is lying here or that this is a Christian interpolation, as it seems to reflect 2nd-hand and slightly ill-informed knowledge of Jesus Christ and a disdainful view of those calling themselves Christians, but the account of Nero (the important part for Tacitus) is much more detailed and much more direct. It's the kind of thing that would be extremely important to a Roman historian, as it concerns the central person of Rome and a particularly important event (the Great Fire of Rome). I doubt Nero knew more than the name Jesus Christ and some rumors (and perhaps not even that, but only the designation "Christian"), but that the emperor new of this one movement even if only in name is quite significant.
During the so-called Hellenistic period, the influx of Greek and Roman cults as well as the spread of local cults, all adopted differently in indifferent locales that it is hard to describe e.g., "the cult of Cybele" as one thing, that a barely known offshoot of Judaism was known to the emperor in 64CE is extremely improbable. Much more likely is that by that time, Christianity (if more in reputation than numbers) had significantly grown by that time.
Instead of received myth recited or sung in meter about some unknown period in which the actions of deities explain why x particular cult tradition is practiced, Christianity had historiographical texts and letters all nailing down this Jesus (pun intended) to a specific and recent period and a specific geographic region.
Moreover, the gospels were written out of need more than anything else (IMO), as the general regard for written accounts was dismissive or even hostile. But the Christians borrowed/stole the scriptural tradition of Judaism and connected themselves to it, making it necessary to ensure (in a way similar to what became the Mishnah) that the orally transmitted narrative of the messiah was actually transmitted. However, unlike proto-rabbinic Judaism, Christians were trying to convert. Which meant that they needed more material and disseminate, as it takes time to instruct a group of disciples sufficiently, as leaders of philosophical, mystic, and religious movements did long before Jesus and long after. The gospels functioned as an version set down in a form that could be consulted by itself without the need of a elder or otherwise sufficiently initiated and instructed teacher.
There isn't much in your first link, but the second one I can speak to. The author mentions the correspondence between Paul and Seneca about the fire. The problem is that Seneca the Younger died in 65CE and these letters are forgeries. As for other historians, we are missing what Plutarch wrote about Nero except a quotation of part of it. Even better is the link's reference to Epictetus, who wasn't a historian and whose works haven't survived
The gospels (for non-biographies: the epistles, the didache, Josephus, Papias, and a few others). They aren't the worst biographical historiography from antiquity (as we have biographical information on Euripides ~600 years after his death and which are a bunch of legends), but they are definitely not the best. Unfortunately, wiki's section on gospel genre desperately needs updating, because I wrote it several years ago and it is too inaccurate. To call the gospels Lives or Bioi like those of Plutarch or Suetonius is to overgeneralize just to create a genre that is largely artificial.
In general, literary boundaries were fuzzy, and the gospels served as more than the typical ancient biography did (i.e., religious or religious-laden literary works that were both ideological and served to bring to life important figures for particular purposes, such as drawing parallels in the case of Plutarch). The gospels weren't just accounts of Jesus (this wasn't usually needed or desired) but required for missionary activities.
If you are interested in it, you do. I am interested in history. I never wrote a lengthy paper about the historical Jesus except the one I wrote about Socrates which involved a comparison between the historical Jesus quest and the Socratic problem. I've probably read more about Socrates than Jesus, as typical 2nd year Greek includes a work by Plato (which as his Apology in my case), and upper level Greek just cycles through authors or types (e.g., Greek oratory), and I happen to be around when Plato came around again (the paper I mentioned as my final for that class).
You might try How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Other works I know of (e.g., Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science) are too technical. Keep in mind Stark is also the author of The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success and similar works.
You mistake me. historical person doesn't depend upon how many Christians there were, but I am not interested in the spread of Christianity for this reason. I am interested in history and religion and in particular (given the languages I can read) the nature of religious life in the Near-East and Greco-Roman worlds.
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
Im not saying he is wrong. All Im saying is that it doesnt take a lot of people to start a riot.
outhouse
Atheistically
Simply not true my friend.
Gjohn was a long process and compilation, what many claim in three parts. The oldest part has a possibility of being old, just facing multiple redactions by a Johannine community.
Just because it was finished in more mythology and a later theology doesn't mean we throw it all out.
If you read up on it, you will find out what im talking about.
outhouse
Atheistically
Good luck with that, but here historicity reigns, and your bringing mythology to the table.
Repox
Truth Seeker
There are no historical records of the gospels, except for copies of original manuscripts and other gospels that were never accepted by church leaders. So, where is historicity?
outhouse
Atheistically
Was there a city called Jerusalem? a temple? the Sadducees the Pharisees?
and on and on and on.
And yet for what you posit, has never been accepted outside mythology scientifically, correct?
So now the best bits of evidence that Jesus was fiction was the amount written about him of a particular type and over so short a period. Right.
The author of Mark wrote a rather poorly connected jumble of accounts and sayings of that were not particularly interesting and certainly had nothing on the great epics and budding genre of novel current at the time. It was about a guy who did a lot of miraculous stuff, but there were plenty of works (some myth, some historical) that did the same and were better written. Also, it required Jewish understanding and fit within a wider Jewish context, yet was written around the time the Romans destroyed the temple and after Nero's use of the early Christians as scapegoats. Multiple Jewish sects were killed of or sufficiently diminished then to make eschatological movements like that of the Essenes (if one believes the Qumran community is to be identified as an Essene group) a poor choice for anybody wishing to stay out of harms way. Paul started out persecuting the church, converted, and was executed. Pliny is pretty clear that while there had as yet been no systematic persecution of Christians, this was a problem, and not long after there were systematic persecutions.
All because an anonymous person, who at best wrote Mark around the time Paul was dead, sparked so great a flame with a work that wasn't great and was built around a Jewish concept of Messiah (not to mention multiple references which would not be understood by non-Jews) that pagans all over the place started proclaiming a Jewish Galilean was a resurrected savior messiah and even dying for their beliefs. But there was, according to you, no Jesus. So Paul either didn't know this, which is pretty odd given how far he travelled and whom he did know within Christian circles, or he did know and spread the word and establishing churches about a Jesus that never existed on earth until his death. And just around that time, this anonymous author wrote about an earthly Jesus. Which means either we have a fair amount of established churches all proclaiming a spiritual (not an earthly) Jesus, who suddenly decide that bad literature is worth dying for and switch completely from their previous beliefs about a spiritual Christ to a belief that a guy executed shamefully by the Romans was a Jewish messiah most Christians wouldn't care about because they weren't Jewish.
Alternatively, Jesus was a real person, he had a real following and made an actual impression in his time, and for one or more among many possible reasons his followers believed he did not die but rose again. And the author of Mark, far from being some "spark" that turned the tide, was just (probably) the first to put down in writing some of the Jesus tradition. In this scenario, we don't have to explain away all the evidence, because Paul's references to an earthly and a resurrected Jesus both make sense, Josephus' reference to a brother that Paul new makes sense, the fact that in a world where extended kinship networks in close-knit communities where the flow of information rivals web 2.0 nobody bothered to check out whether or not anybody in Galilee had heard of this guy Jesus of Nazareth (and, as it began within Jewish circles, it would be hard not to know of him if he had lived and thus any Jews preaching a resurrected spiritual messiah have already so abandoned Judaism that we've arrived at 4th century Gnosticism before Paul wrote anything), and all the other evidence as well.
That's what historical study is about: explaining evidence and finding the best explanation. Not explaining it away to fit preconceived notions or wants and then trashing scholars as biased and incompetent.
Which is why we have so many! Oh, wait. No it isn't. It's because what we call the gospels weren't called that until later, and by that time there were imitations that are so different from the first century texts the only reasons we call them gospels is because they were written often as a kind of "anti-gospel" used the same nomenclature and for the same reasons we still have the category "gnostic" even though we apply it to groups with completely different and frequently incompatible beliefs.
Last edited:
If copies of copies is a problem for you, and you require originals or at least something close, then there is no author from antiquity that we can trust. Most come to us in quotes by other authors whose works survive in manuscripts from the middle ages. You can certainly set your bar that high, and require originals (and while we're at it why not require any ancient historian to never rely on myth or legend, including rationalizing it the way Livy does for the myth of Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves). Of course, the consequence for such standards is that we now know nothing about ancient history. All secondary scholarship on antiquity has relied on far, far less manuscript evidence (or, like Carrier, relied on an epitaph about a person otherwise unknown to us so that Carrier can describe this individual as a scientist). All ancient historians included mythic references, used legends, brought in religion, etc., so they'd be hard to trust even if we had more than almost no manuscript evidence for any of them.
If you are going to apply a standard of evidence, at least know what that would mean if used in general and make sure you are fine with this.
Repox
Truth Seeker
An inspiring author well of course become familiar with the setting for their story.
Because the gospels were written 35 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, there is little reason to believe they are accurate. Also, evidence suggests they were not eyewitnesses to Jesus or his ministry.
I believe Jesus existed, but I believe he was the OT Lord, not the son of God. Because God is a duality, no one could understand. Instead, they invented son of God stories. Where do we find the son of God in the OT. Why didn't God tell his chosen people about him, etc.?
So, assuming I am correct, son of God references should be deleted from the gospels. Well, then what do you have? Nothing, they fall apart. In short, we have no really good story about the Lord God as a man.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
I know for a fact that you are wrong. There is a man named Jesus. Mexican guy works down at my favorite Mexican restaurant. Good guy
Freelance_Policeman
Member
This...is beyond...Ugh, this is just ignorant.
Why does no one claim Muhammad never existed? The Buddha? Abraham? Their records are much sketchier.
Why does no one claim Muhammad never existed? The Buddha? Abraham? Their records are much sketchier.
That would be true if we were in the modern period, where various genres of fiction were established and there were plenty of people who could read. In a primarily oral society where even the literate were suspicious of the written word, your suggesting we have some sort novel about a Jewish Galilean that convinces pagans to accept a religion described by most pagans as atheism, because it denied the gods, the cults, the entire framework of Hellenistic religious practice in exchange for something new (and in a world where novelty was bad and ancient good) all because of a fiction some anonymous author wrote after there were already established Christian churches in places like Rome, Jerusalem, Corinth, etc.
And this inspiring author? Most of his work reads like a series of disconnected sayings or accounts badly strung together with connectors like euthos.
So we have no reason to believe just about any historical work from antiquity, as e.g., our sources for Nero weren't just written after he was dead, the most influential was written by someone born after Nero died. One of the most famous biographers wrote about individuals living anywhere from 3 to 6 centuries earlier.
That's true. Which is why it would be very important to understand how oral cultures function, both in the ways the tend to be similar and to differ, as well as how they function individually, using models developed over the past several decades by anthropologists and the cognitive anthropologists and then combining that with the work done since Birger Gerhardsson's in '61, through the period where everything was suddenly treated using the Homeric oral-formulaic, into the 21st century where orality is a field unto itself and much of the work done was begun by classical and biblical scholars on the one hand and early folklorists then anthropologists on the other.
Oh wait. That did happen.
My exit cue.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
People claim that those peole did not exist on a regular basis, it's just not discussed as much because they are not as emotionally stirring as the subject of Jesus. At least in America.
One of my history teachers in college swore by the idea that Muhammad was a crazed goat herder lol. It was kind of funny to hear him talk of the founder of a religious group in such a deragotory manner, but he definitely knew his stuff and cited scholarly references for all his claims.
roger1440
I do stuff
After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:46-47)
I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. The Life Of Flavius Josephus, Paragraph 2 http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm
Imagine that, Josephus is a lot like Jesus when he was a kid. Coincidence? I dont think so. :no:
Such as?
The reason biblical scholars (like classicists) are required to learn to read German and either Italian or French is because Germany has been the center of historical Jesus scholarship the longest, and because 2nd place is probably a tie between English (including the UK) and French, but Italian has more than its share of scholarship on the subject. Just no mythicists after that was hashed out mainly by German (but also French and English-speaking scholars) in the 19th century. All the "big names" that grad students are still often required to read (Reimarus, Strauss, F. C. Bauer and Bruno Bauer, Holtzmann, Schweitzer, etc.) with few exceptions (e.g., Renan) were German. The most commonly used reference grammar and lexicon in English were both translated from German.
Which would make him historical.
Mythicists can't do this. They need to claim that all historical scholarship about Jesus is either written out of fear or bias or both, and that's why you can count on one hand the number of people with relevant degrees in the last 30 years or more who have doubted that Jesus existed. Apart from Price and Carrier, actually, we'd have to go back almost a century to find mythicists who wrote what was considered scholarship (back before peer-review and all). We can add to that a professor of German who backed off of his mythicist stance, an amateur historian who has the same credentials I do (not counting the irrelevant ones), and a linguist. Apart from that, I don't think there have been any works that aren't so full of obvious mistakes they need to be counted in almost a century.
True, and also true of any other history we have unless the authors are basing their histories on primary sources that can be corroborated.
On the other hand, if we had the evidence for Jesus as we have for Pontius Pilate, this discussion would be long over.