The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

I offered you the last word, so if you want a response, you'll have to ask.

 

[fallingblood]

I offered you the last word, so if you want a response, you'll have to ask.

I would like a response. Especially on the idea that Jesus is a fictional character. I would be interested in seeing your reasoning for that.

 

[Warren Clark]

Wow. This OP is old...

Did you ever write that book?

 

[fallingblood]

Wow. This OP is old...

Did you ever write that book?

It is a work in progress. I'm thinking that I might release it as podcasts instead, but reworked a little.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I would like a response. Especially on the idea that Jesus is a fictional character. I would be interested in seeing your reasoning for that.

OK, I'll answer your last message as soon as I can.

You've already seen my reasoning for Jesus-as-fictional-character -- at least as much as you would allow me to present -- but I don't mind trying again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's every archaeological basis. Most Judaic boys of the time were taught the texts by rote memorization -- not reading. It is possible that Jesus could read a little. But it's far more likely that, being a rural Galilean, he was illiterate, like over 85% of his colleagues.

Source?

 

[Vfadad]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?[/QU

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That simply is not true. Even for those who do not believe Christianity is legit, the idea that Jesus is a historical figure still factors in. The reason being that there is little to no reason to assume that he didn't exist.

Actually, there are lots of reasons. If it weren't so, I wouldn't have concluded that he's non-historical.

The problem is when atheists, and non-Christians decided that if a historical Jesus existed, he had to be exactly how the Bible states. That simply is false and based on a lack of research on the actual subject of the historical Jesus.

I think you're trying to simplify your opponents' position, the easier to debunk it.

I've never heard anyone argue that Jesus must be precisely as portrayed in the Bible in order to be 'historical.'

There really is no reason to not believe that a historical figure named Jesus existed.

You repeat this assertion over and over. It's curious to me. I have to suspect that something emotional is going on.

That's fine. However, you would have the burden of proof when it comes to that idea. If you don't think he existed, then you have the burden of proving that idea.

First, I've already done so -- in our last thread.

Second, I have no idea what 'prove' might mean to you, so let me ask you a simple question before we continue. I really need for you to answer this question before I can engage the debate.

To whom do you want me to prove that Jesus is non-historical?

And if you are feeling particularly frisky, could you possibly define the word 'prove' in your own words? Paraphrase for me what you mean when you ask me to prove the non-historicity of Jesus. What are you asking me to do exactly?

The Gospel writers never created a movement. The movement was already started by that time. We know this because Paul had already been working in that movement. More so, the Gospels were based on oral tradition, and this tradition preceded it by around 4 decades. They couldn't create a movement that already existed.

Of course they could create a movement which was already started. In my view, Christianity would likely have withered on the vine with Paul and the gospelers.

Think Starbucks. It was a little coffee shop. Hardly noticeable. But then the Paul of Coffeeshops bought it and before long it had morphed into an actual cultural icon.

That guy created Starbucks -- not the original owners of the little coffeeshop. Yes?

As for Paul, he didn't start the movement either. We can be sure of this as he tells us straight out that there was already a movement that he was persecuting. It was that movement that he joined. So again, the movement had to exist before him, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to actually persecute it.

See Starbucks.

More so, he tells us that the movement was centralized in Jerusalem, and was headed by James, Peter, and John. James was the brother of Jesus (as Paul tells us), and Peter and John were disciples. So the movement must have existed before Paul if it was headed by someone else.

Yes, Blood. Obviously Xy existed before Paul. No one has argued otherwise.

Really, there is no reason to assume Paul or the Gospel writers created something that we can know for sure existed before them.

Do you really believe that I don't know about Paul persecuting Christians, Blood?

Really?

Why not assume that I have the basic information to argue this issue? Wouldn't that save us a lot of time?

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, there are lots of reasons. If it weren't so, I wouldn't have concluded that he's non-historical.

Then voice some.

I think you're trying to simplify your opponents' position, the easier to debunk it.

I've never heard anyone argue that Jesus must be precisely as portrayed in the Bible in order to be 'historical.'

Then what are your reasons? I'm not over simplifying my opponents position. I simply have read and heard the position many times. Now if your position is different, please voice it.

You repeat this assertion over and over. It's curious to me. I have to suspect that something emotional is going on.

Nothing emotional. I'm not a Christian. I don't believe Jesus is the savior. I don't believe he had divine powers or anything like that. In fact, I once believed he didn't exist. However, after doing credible research (meaning from respected and credible scholars), I saw that the Jesus myth really is based on nothing more than misinformation and shoddy research.

First, I've already done so -- in our last thread.

Please direct me to the thread you are speaking of and the posts in question, because I don't remember them.

Second, I have no idea what 'prove' might mean to you, so let me ask you a simple question before we continue. I really need for you to answer this question before I can engage the debate.

I'll simplify it. Provide some evidence for your position. That is all I want.

To whom do you want me to prove that Jesus is non-historical?

Me or anyone who might be reading this thread. All you need to do is supply your reasoning as to why you believe Jesus was not a historical figure. That is all. Just provide your evidence for your claim.

Of course they could create a movement which was already started. In my view, Christianity would likely have withered on the vine with Paul and the gospelers.

Think Starbucks. It was a little coffee shop. Hardly noticeable. But then the Paul of Coffeeshops bought it and before long it had morphed into an actual cultural icon.

That guy created Starbucks -- not the original owners of the little coffeeshop. Yes?

No, the original owners created Starbucks. You can not create something that already exists. The new owner simply redefined Starbucks. He took it into a new directs. He didn't create anything, he built upon something that was already there.

As for Christianity withering away without Paul and the Gospel writers, that is highly unlikely. The reason being that there were various missionaries like Paul working. Paul mentions some (not by name) in his letters. There were churches starting in places that Paul had never been (such as Rome). The mission was moving in areas that Paul never got to. The only difference with Paul is that he wrote letters that we still have today. However, he was by no means the only person spreading the new movement.

As for the Gospel writers. The Gospels were written for specific audiences. These audiences were already familiar with the Jesus movement. So in order to spread a movement, it would not make sense to write for people who were already apart of that movement.

See Starbucks.

Which is wrong.

Yes, Blood. Obviously Xy existed before Paul. No one has argued otherwise.

No, it didn't. Christianity didn't form until much later, after Paul died. Paul was spreading a Jewish movement that would later evolve into Christianity.

Do you really believe that I don't know about Paul persecuting Christians, Blood?

Really?

Why not assume that I have the basic information to argue this issue? Wouldn't that save us a lot of time?

Because you aren't showing it. You stated that Paul and the Gospel writers created the movement. Thus, it would make one think that you did not know that the movement had already existed.

Just as a side note, the religious ideas that Paul preached were different from the Gospel writers in part. The religious ideas that the Gospel writers preached were different from each other in part, as well as later Gospel and Christian writers, at least in part. And that has drastically changed many times throughout history, up to the present day.

By the logic that you are using, everyone of those individuals have created the movement. Because what you are pretty much changing is that because someone comes around and changes the movement, they must have already created it. That simply is not good logic.

 

[sojourner]

Source?

Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott, Darbeth Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Phillips Theological Seminary.

Dr. Scott's scholarship has always been centered on questions concerning hermeneutics and the historical Jesus. A charter member of the Jesus Seminar, his course offerings in recent years have included New Testament Greek, Introduction to the New Testament, Romans, The Historical Jesus, Theological Issues in Film, and the PTS Borderlinks study tour.

Among hiscurrent projects is a study of sound mapping, focusing on sound as the communication environment of the ancient world.

Dr. Scott is a member of the American Academy of Religion, Catholic Biblical Society, Societas Novi Testamenti Studiorum, and Society of Biblical Literature, for which he serves as co-chair of its Bible in Ancient and Modern Media section.

Good enough?

 

[sojourner]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?[/QU

sounds like you're continuing the tradition of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's every archaeological basis. Most Judaic boys of the time were taught the texts by rote memorization -- not reading. It is possible that Jesus could read a little. But it's far more likely that, being a rural Galilean, he was illiterate, like over 85% of his colleagues.

Source?

Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott, Darbeth Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Phillips Theological Seminary. ... Good enough?

I honestly do not know. Please show me where he claims that "it's far more likely that, being a rural Galilean, [Jesus] was illiterate, like over 85% of his colleagues." It would be interesting to see how such a distinguished scholar characterizes the capabilities one might expect from an observant religious son of a craftman raised in the immediate vicinity of Sepphoris and Tiberias.

 

[sojourner]

I honestly do not know. Please show me where he claims that "it's far more likely that, being a rural Galilean, [Jesus] was illiterate, like over 85% of his colleagues." It would be interesting to see how such a distinguished scholar characterizes the capabilities one might expect from an observant religious son of a craftman raised in the immediate vicinity of Sepphoris and Tiberias.

I'll have to look back through my class notes from two years ago -- or ask him next time I see him. His take on the whole oral transmission of the gospels was very interesting -- and had a lot to do with his research into sound mapping. The jist was that, because illiteracy was so high, the brain adapted to different ways of memorization and drawing similarities than our brains do, through paying attention to sounds rather than visual input. He claims that, when we read, we actually shortcut part of the brain's processing power. That has something to do with the unique way in which Jesus taught and used language. (Brandon has written a couple of widely-read books on the parables of Jesus).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll have to look back through my class notes from two years ago -- or ask him next time I see him.

Thanks.

When you do, ask him what if any implication he draws from the pluriformity of texts found at Qumran, the bar Kochba letters, and the numerous other suggestions of literacy to be found in late 2nd Temple Period Palestine.

Parenthetically, if one were to take your position as Gospel (sorry) and presume an 85% illiteracy rate in rural Galilee, that would suggest 15% literacy. What would you guess would be the likelihood that a young observant craftsman son might become one of those 15%?

 

[sojourner]

Thanks.

When you do, ask him what if any implication he draws from the pluriformity of texts found at Qumran, the bar Kochba letters, and the numerous other suggestions of literacy to be found in late 2nd Temple Period Palestine.

Parenthetically, if one were to take your position as Gospel (sorry) and presume an 85% illiteracy rate in rural Galilee, that would suggest 15% literacy. What would you guess would be the likelihood that a young observant craftsman son might become one of those 15%?

It's possible, but unlikely. Galilee was rural. Rural areas were, by and large, more illiterate than urban centers. Galilee has been identified as less literate than Judea. The craftsman class of that time period were usually not literate. My best logical guess is that, if 15% of the population were literate, there would be a 15% chance that Jesus would be literate.

We've actually discussed Qumran. If I remember correctly, the implication he drew was that Qumran was a library-repository. The Essenes were mostly a cloistered group, and, as such, would not represent the norm.

 

[outhouse]

there would be a 15% chance that Jesus would be literate

there is no way one can put 15% as a guess on this.

its barely know that he lived outside of myth let alone to start getting into details..


now the proper statement would be that possibly certain craftsmen from Galilee could hold a 15% literacy rate.

A tekton could be so many things and craftsmen is a wide statement and the literacy rate between all craftsmen could vary. A stone worker in Sepphoris may have some skills as required for the job.

A teacher of judaism might have some literacy despite the strong oral tradition.


the main problem is we know less then more about the charactor and there is a good case for both sides of the literacy coin.

One may have missed the one few details we do know, that is he was a "traveling teacher of judaism" traveling means we was not always stuck in Galilee

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then voice some.

I've voiced very many of them already, but you continue to insist that I've never presented any evidence of the non-historicity of Jesus. It's peculiar. My evidence seems invisible to you, as evidence of evolution is invisible to most creationists.

Nothing emotional. I'm not a Christian.

I'm sorry, but I make my own judgment of you, just as I assume you make yours of me.

Please direct me to the thread you are speaking of and the posts in question, because I don't remember them.

See: Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

I'll simplify it. Provide some evidence for your position. That is all I want.

Since you cannot present a single piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, why do you ask me for counter evidence? All I want is for you to offer one scrap of evidence. That's all. Just one bit of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Why can't you do that?

(An AmbiguousGuy joke, folks. You'll get used to me. Or not.)

All you need to do is supply your reasoning as to why you believe Jesus was not a historical figure. That is all. Just provide your evidence for your claim.

HeeHee. You're not joking, are you. Yikes.

Anyway, here are two of the solid, irrefutable evidences which I presented to you in the earlier threads, actually numbered so you'll have a harder time proclaiming that they don't exist.

1) The synoptic gospels, in which whole blocks of text are copied from the other gospels, leading any reasonable person to conclude that they are rewrites of fictional work, rather than retellings of the same story.

2) The human passion for heroes, leading a reasonable person to doubt that Jesus is any more 'historic' than Robin Hood or Merlin.

No, the original owners created Starbucks. You can not create something that already exists. The new owner simply redefined Starbucks. He took it into a new directs. He didn't create anything, he built upon something that was already there.

That's a fine personal opinion. I don't think it holds up under scrutiny, but it's a fine personal opinion.

The only difference with Paul is that he wrote letters that we still have today. However, he was by no means the only person spreading the new movement.

He was the only one with the passion to make it work, I think.

No, it didn't. Christianity didn't form until much later, after Paul died. Paul was spreading a Jewish movement that would later evolve into Christianity.

So you're changing your position? You now agree that Paul created Christianity?

By the logic that you are using, everyone of those individuals have created the movement. Because what you are pretty much changing is that because someone comes around and changes the movement, they must have already created it. That simply is not good logic.

Thank you for informing me of proper logic. It's a loving thing to do. However, from what I've seen so far, my logic seems a bit fuller than your own. Nothing personal, of course.

Yes, lots of individuals have created and continue to create Christianity, every day. But some do more than others, like the Pauls of Christianity and of Starbucks.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't see it becoming dominant though, and if it does, it will be more liberal than it is now. Americans will not accept a conservative form of Islam, and neither will Europeans. For the Western world to really accept Islam, it will have to become more liberal. And that is what one is seeing in western societies (this is not including Muslim immigrants, as that is a different story. However, there is little doubt that their children will become more and more liberal in their beliefs, if they already aren't). That is simply the way that religion is going in the Western world.

As for a problem arising between American and European Muslims, I see no reason why.

We see things differently. I don't think conservative Islam will be able to tolerate the liberal branches which you agree will arise.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's possible, but unlikely. Galilee was rural. Rural areas were, by and large, more illiterate than urban centers. Galilee has been identified as less literate than Judea. The craftsman class of that time period were usually not literate.

Your near absolute knowledge of 1st century CE Judea makes you a rather valuable commodity. Could you tell me how you come to know that "the craftsman class of that time period were [sic] usually not literate"? Also, what can you tell me about nearby Sepphoris and Tiberias during that period?

We've actually discussed Qumran. If I remember correctly, the implication he drew was that Qumran was a library-repository.

He was probably wrong.

The Essenes were mostly a cloistered group, and, as such, would not represent the norm.

Cloistered and highly sectarian, i.e.., not the type of group that would likely save, much less produce, the pluriformity of textual variants that characterizes the Qumran scrolls.

All in all, I would recommend more study and less certitude.

 

[sojourner]

1) The synoptic gospels, in which whole blocks of text are copied from the other gospels, leading any reasonable person to conclude that they are rewrites of fictional work, rather than retellings of the same story.

No, that dynamic leads any reasonable person familiar with the process of ancient writing to conclude that the copying makes them more -- not less -- plausible as different stories of the same events.

2) The human passion for heroes, leading a reasonable person to doubt that Jesus is any more 'historic' than Robin Hood or Merlin.

The writings present Jesus in a highly mythic light. But to do so also makes his existence more, not less, plausible.