Why The Gospels Are Myth

[mymistake]

Perhaps this article will be of some interest on the topic:

 

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'

 

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.

 

The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.

 

He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

Full article:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

 

 

 

Sounds very familiar.  If James had a brother named Jesus who died some time around 30 AD then that creates a problem because there would have been people who remembered that Jesus when Paul and the author of Mark started lying through their teeth about all the spectacular crazy things mentioned in the New Testament.

 

As an example Heath Ledger was a great actor.  (He played the Joker in the movie Dark Knight.)  It was tragic when he overdosed on drugs just a few years ago.  But if I wrote a book that said he was a alien and he could fly and he had telepathic powers and he could transform himself so to any size, and I claimed Mr Ledger would often become 400 feet tall just for kicks well people would think it was a sick joke because they knew the man.

 

When Mark came out there were people still alive who would know that there was no feeding of the 5,000.  It is ludicrous!  Everybody in Galilee would know that it was a lie. 

 

 

On the other hand, if there was already a long standing oral tradition of a mythical Jesus who had done some of mythical deeds mentioned in the New Testament then locals would eat that up.  "Hey, this is the story my parents and grandparents told me when I was a child!"

[directionless]

Something I've been thinking about is the fact that there are so many non-canonical gospels. In the youtube lecture in the OP, Carrier said the Nag Hammadi collection included a partially completed gospel where somebody was putting the words of a Greek into the mouth of Jesus.

 

To me this indicates that these people who were creating fictional gospels must have either had no respect for Christianity or understood that all the other gospels were fiction. This is like Seven77's analogy of writing fan fiction.

 

I know that Sextus mentioned the myths about Vespasian's miraculous healing powers. Also we have George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. So real people can inspire myths, but there was so much gospel fan fiction written. Would Christians really take such liberties if there were historical events inspiring the gospel of Mark?

[mymistake]

I definitely recommend the book Lost Scripture by Bart D. Ehrman.  It includes the full text on many of the gospels, acts, epistles and revelations that were not selected.  You can read those "scriptures" for yourself and see just where Christianity was going in the second and third centuries before Rome took over.  

[Overcame Faith]

 

Sounds very familiar.  If James had a brother named Jesus who died some time around 30 AD then that creates a problem because there would have been people who remembered that Jesus when Paul and the author of Mark started lying through their teeth about all the spectacular crazy things mentioned in the New Testament.

 

As an example Heath Ledger was a great actor.  (He played the Joker in the movie Dark Knight.)  It was tragic when he overdosed on drugs just a few years ago.  But if I wrote a book that said he was a alien and he could fly and he had telepathic powers and he could transform himself so to any size, and I claimed Mr Ledger would often become 400 feet tall just for kicks well people would think it was a sick joke because they knew the man.

 

When Mark came out there were people still alive who would know that there was no feeding of the 5,000.  It is ludicrous!  Everybody in Galilee would know that it was a lie. 

 

 

On the other hand, if there was already a long standing oral tradition of a mythical Jesus who had done some of mythical deeds mentioned in the New Testament then locals would eat that up.  "Hey, this is the story my parents and grandparents told me when I was a child!"

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. Here is where I stumble, though. I don't understand why the myth arose. Let me just give one example of what I mean.

 

As I understand Mark, the book actually ends at Chapter 16, verse 8 with the women trembling in fear, running away and not telling anyone what they had seen. What they see is essentially only an empty tomb but with a young man in a white robe telling the women that Jesus had risen and his body was not there. However, in Mark, the true Mark, there were no resurrection appearances of Jesus.

 

Since Mark is the earliest Gospel (known), why couldn't the missing body of a real man who was actually crucified and who had perhaps a modest following during his life, one not large enough to attract the attention of historians, not be the root of the myth of the resurrection? Perhaps his modest number of followers learned of the missing body and from there "reasoned" that he must have risen from the dead. They then spread that word to others who were not his followers and more and more people came to believe it. From there, and as it grew, other things like a virgin birth, miracles, etc. were added.

 

I am still undecided on the issue, but these are among the areas that I think about in favor of the possibility that the mythological Jesus may have been based on a real person, albeit a totally human being who never performed miracles and most certainly did not rise from the dead.

[Storm]

 

 

Sounds very familiar. If James had a brother named Jesus who died some time around 30 AD then that creates a problem because there would have been people who remembered that Jesus when Paul and the author of Mark started lying through their teeth about all the spectacular crazy things mentioned in the New Testament.

 

As an example Heath Ledger was a great actor. (He played the Joker in the movie Dark Knight.) It was tragic when he overdosed on drugs just a few years ago. But if I wrote a book that said he was a alien and he could fly and he had telepathic powers and he could transform himself so to any size, and I claimed Mr Ledger would often become 400 feet tall just for kicks well people would think it was a sick joke because they knew the man.

 

When Mark came out there were people still alive who would know that there was no feeding of the 5,000. It is ludicrous! Everybody in Galilee would know that it was a lie.

 

 

On the other hand, if there was already a long standing oral tradition of a mythical Jesus who had done some of mythical deeds mentioned in the New Testament then locals would eat that up. "Hey, this is the story my parents and grandparents told me when I was a child!"

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. Here is where I stumble, though. I don't understand why the myth arose. Let me just give one example of what I mean.

 

As I understand Mark, the book actually ends at Chapter 16, verse 8 with the women trembling in fear, running away and not telling anyone what they had seen. What they see is essentially only an empty tomb but with a young man in a white robe telling the women that Jesus had risen and his body was not there. However, in Mark, the true Mark, there were no resurrection appearances of Jesus.

 

Since Mark is the earliest Gospel (known), why couldn't the missing body of a real man who was actually crucified and who had perhaps a modest following during his life, one not large enough to attract the attention of historians, not be the root of the myth of the resurrection? Perhaps his modest number of followers learned of the missing body and from there "reasoned" that he must have risen from the dead. They then spread that word to others who were not his followers and more and more people came to believe it. From there, and as it grew, other things like a virgin birth, miracles, etc. were added.

 

I am still undecided on the issue, but these are among the areas that I think about in favor of the possibility that the mythological Jesus may have been based on a real person, albeit a totally human being who never performed miracles and most certainly did not rise from the dead.

I was listening to a lecture the other day, but unfortunately I don't remember the lecturer. However, he brought up a very interesting point about Jesus' resurrection and how the Roman empire would have reacted. He stated that if the Roman leader who killed Jesus had find out that he wasn't dead, it was highly probable that a full regiment would have been detached to find this person who they executed. Roman leaders didn't take too kindly to the people they execute still living and they would have gone to great lengths to find Jesus to make sure he suffered the just punishment sentenced to him. This is suggested to be possible evidence that he was either killed and stayed dead or he never was crucified or that he never existed. Something to consider along the lines of your thinking, OF.

[Sextus]

I have wondered some about applying cladistics to the existing gospel manuscripts along with other clues such as type of ink, type of parchment, church-political connections between different manuscripts, etc. This might reveal something about the evolution of the gospels? I suppose most of what we have is partial scraps and that would make it difficult.

 

Here is a link to the wikipedia article on cladistics. It seems to me that it might be helpful for tracing the evolution of manuscripts possibly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

The study of the relationships between manuscripts and the texts in them is a key tool in the study of any question of ancient history and so is also used extensively by scholars in New Testament studies. That's how we can be sure that the final chaper of gMark is a later addition, for example or how we can know that the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in gJohn was added to the text centuries after its original compostion. In fact, no set of ancient texts hasn't been analysed in this way more thoroughly or for longer than the New Testament books.

[Sextus]

As I mentioned earlier, I looked through about 10 commentaries on Mark over the weekend and not one of them mentioned chiasms. I wonder if chiasms are taboo for Christians, because they show that the events in the gospel of Mark are probably not in chronological order and that leads to further questions about whether some of the events are allegorical or even fictitious.

There are many types of Christians who are not fundamentalist literalist evangelicals. It might be a surprise to many here, but most Christian scholars would not be bothered by the fact that some or even most of the stuff in gMark is perhaps, allegorical or non-historical (which is not the same as “ficticious” – “fiction”, along with “myth” is a word people here keep misusing).

 

As for the possible chiastic structure of gMark being somehow “taboo” and not discussed in Christian commentaries, I just typed “chiastic mark commentary” into Google Books and found five commentaries that discuss the idea on the very first page of results. Perhaps you were looking at very conservative evangelical commentaries.

 

Carrier seems to use the chiasmic structure to support his idea that Jesus was not a historical person. That argument doesn't seem very persuasive to me. Knowing about the chiasmic structure makes me appreciate that Mark was carefully composed more like a poem as opposed to a simple chronological record of the life of Jesus from oral history available to the author, but it doesn't persuade me that Jesus never existed.

That is a good observation. Carrier has a tendency to pretend that whatever the evidence he’s presenting, it somehow leads automatically to the conclusion he wants his audience to adopt. Real scholars stop and pay due regard to alternative explanations. Carrier only does this when he wants to insist the alternatives are wrong and he is right. This is what I mean about him being more of a preacher than an objective scholar. He is a man with an agenda.

[Sextus]

Tim, I came across that debate when Apostate Abe linked me to it a few years back. There are a lot of asides as you noted. But the point is that Abe was unable to show a clear link to Jesus as an ascetic so basically all of the apocalyptic material could have been from John the Baptist or some other ascetic dooms day apocalyptic preacher and not even from Jesus originally.

I could think of a dozen ways that apocalyptic material could have found its way into the Jesus traditions without a historical Jesus. But, as I keep pointing out to people here, saying “Well, maybe it happened this way … “ isn’t making an argument. It’s doing little more than using a mere conjecture to avoid taking the next step – weighing the various ‘maybes’ against the evidence to see which stacks up best and is the most parsimonious explanation. The study of history is not about waving around mere “maybes”. It’s about taking that next step. Mere “maybes” have zero weight.

 

This goes back to outlining the uncertainty of what would be original to a proposed historical core. As positive claims emerge, they tend to get hammered with counter arguments and basically I don't know of any one successfully showing who the real historical Jesus was which still remains illusive.....

Then apply the principle of parsimony, which is the key to historical analysis. Ask “which of these explains the most evidence in the most logical way without requiring suppositions or a priori assumptions”. So yes, maybe there was no Jesus and all that apocalyptic stuff came from John. But is there anything that supports this over the idea that the stories have two characters – Jesus and John – because there were two characters? What reason do we have think otherwise? And why, if Jesus was an invention, is John still in the stories?

Then if we look further, why is John also so problematic to the gospel writers? Why does one of the texts make Jesus John’s cousin in one story and then have John not know who he even is in another? Why the progression in the stories of the baptism of Jesus by John that moves it from a simple “John baptised Jesus without recognising him as Messiah in any way” (gMark) through “John baptised Jesus but objected that it should be the other way around because Jesus was the Messiah”(gMatt) to “John didn’t baptise Jesus and instead loudly declared he was the Messiah”(gJohn)? Why do we have John sending his disciples to question who Jesus was?

 

All this indicates that Jesus had a following separate from that of John and which was trying to distance itself from the older, more prominent prophet and his following. But I can’t see how it indicates that Jesus didn’t exist and was somehow (how?) based on John and other guys like him. Where is that actually indicated in the evidence?

[gall]

 

Tim, I came across that debate when Apostate Abe linked me to it a few years back. There are a lot of asides as you noted. But the point is that Abe was unable to show a clear link to Jesus as an ascetic so basically all of the apocalyptic material could have been from John the Baptist or some other ascetic dooms day apocalyptic preacher and not even from Jesus originally.

I could think of a dozen ways that apocalyptic material could have found its way into the Jesus traditions without a historical Jesus. But, as I keep pointing out to people here, saying “Well, maybe it happened this way … “ isn’t making an argument. It’s doing little more than using a mere conjecture to avoid taking the next step – weighing the various ‘maybes’ against the evidence to see which stacks up best and is the most parsimonious explanation. The study of history is not about waving around mere “maybes”. It’s about taking that next step. Mere “maybes” have zero weight.

 

This goes back to outlining the uncertainty of what would be original to a proposed historical core. As positive claims emerge, they tend to get hammered with counter arguments and basically I don't know of any one successfully showing who the real historical Jesus was which still remains illusive.....

Then apply the principle of parsimony, which is the key to historical analysis. Ask “which of these explains the most evidence in the most logical way without requiring suppositions or a priori assumptions”. So yes, maybe there was no Jesus and all that apocalyptic stuff came from John. But is there anything that supports this over the idea that the stories have two characters – Jesus and John – because there were two characters? What reason do we have think otherwise? And why, if Jesus was an invention, is John still in the stories?

Then if we look further, why is John also so problematic to the gospel writers? Why does one of the texts make Jesus John’s cousin in one story and then have John not know who he even is in another? Why the progression in the stories of the baptism of Jesus by John that moves it from a simple “John baptised Jesus without recognising him as Messiah in any way” (gMark) through “John baptised Jesus but objected that it should be the other way around because Jesus was the Messiah”(gMatt) to “John didn’t baptise Jesus and instead loudly declared he was the Messiah”(gJohn)? Why do we have John sending his disciples to question who Jesus was?

 

All this indicates that Jesus had a following separate from that of John and which was trying to distance itself from the older, more prominent prophet and his following. But I can’t see how it indicates that Jesus didn’t exist and was somehow (how?) based on John and other guys like him. Where is that actually indicated in the evidence?

 

 

When did this all start get considered as evidence of anything. Fiction is still fiction no matter how you choose to read it.

[Sextus]

 

Then apply the principle of parsimony, which is the key to historical analysis. Ask “which of these explains the most evidence in the most logical way without requiring suppositions or a priori assumptions”. So yes, maybe there was no Jesus and all that apocalyptic stuff came from John. But is there anything that supports this over the idea that the stories have two characters – Jesus and John – because there were two characters? What reason do we have think otherwise? And why, if Jesus was an invention, is John still in the stories?

Then if we look further, why is John also so problematic to the gospel writers? Why does one of the texts make Jesus John’s cousin in one story and then have John not know who he even is in another? Why the progression in the stories of the baptism of Jesus by John that moves it from a simple “John baptised Jesus without recognising him as Messiah in any way” (gMark) through “John baptised Jesus but objected that it should be the other way around because Jesus was the Messiah”(gMatt) to “John didn’t baptise Jesus and instead loudly declared he was the Messiah”(gJohn)? Why do we have John sending his disciples to question who Jesus was?

 

All this indicates that Jesus had a following separate from that of John and which was trying to distance itself from the older, more prominent prophet and his following. But I can’t see how it indicates that Jesus didn’t exist and was somehow (how?) based on John and other guys like him. Where is that actually indicated in the evidence?

 

When did this all start get considered as evidence of anything.

 

 

If we are discussing how certain beliefs arose, we need to examine the expressions of those beliefs. That makes perfect sense. How else would we do it?

 

Fiction is still fiction no matter how you choose to read it.

Er, yup. Thanks, but this discussion is for those of us who don't start by assuming our conclusion.

[gall]

 

 

Then apply the principle of parsimony, which is the key to historical analysis. Ask “which of these explains the most evidence in the most logical way without requiring suppositions or a priori assumptions”. So yes, maybe there was no Jesus and all that apocalyptic stuff came from John. But is there anything that supports this over the idea that the stories have two characters – Jesus and John – because there were two characters? What reason do we have think otherwise? And why, if Jesus was an invention, is John still in the stories?

Then if we look further, why is John also so problematic to the gospel writers? Why does one of the texts make Jesus John’s cousin in one story and then have John not know who he even is in another? Why the progression in the stories of the baptism of Jesus by John that moves it from a simple “John baptised Jesus without recognising him as Messiah in any way” (gMark) through “John baptised Jesus but objected that it should be the other way around because Jesus was the Messiah”(gMatt) to “John didn’t baptise Jesus and instead loudly declared he was the Messiah”(gJohn)? Why do we have John sending his disciples to question who Jesus was?

 

All this indicates that Jesus had a following separate from that of John and which was trying to distance itself from the older, more prominent prophet and his following. But I can’t see how it indicates that Jesus didn’t exist and was somehow (how?) based on John and other guys like him. Where is that actually indicated in the evidence?

 

When did this all start get considered as evidence of anything.

 

 

If we are discussing how certain beliefs arose, we need to examine the expressions of those beliefs. That makes perfect sense. How else would we do it?

 

Fiction is still fiction no matter how you choose to read it.

Er, yup. Thanks, but this discussion is for those of us who don't start by assuming our conclusion.

 

 

Sorry if I lost sight of that but i think the thread itself has because I didn't sense that from the posts in it.

 

I didn't assume anything and the only thing I ever asked is proof of what is written and said. There is no proof. Only assumption. All religion is based on assumption. The only conclusion I am drawing is that you are all debating over a fictional tale as relevant as it may be to our modern day people.

 

I will just step out and let you all go on I don't need to get in the way here.

[Sextus]

Sorry if I lost sight of that but i think the thread itself has because I didn't sense that from the posts in it.

 

I didn't assume anything and the only thing I ever asked is proof of what is written and said. There is no proof. Only assumption. All religion is based on assumption. The only conclusion I am drawing is that you are all debating over a fictional tale as relevant as it may be to our modern day people.

 

I will just step out and let you all go on I don't need to get in the way here.

If you aren't bothering to even try to follow what's being said (and those comments show you aren't) how about you just leave the discussion to those who are managing to keep up.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Sorry if I lost sight of that but i think the thread itself has because I didn't sense that from the posts in it.

 

I didn't assume anything and the only thing I ever asked is proof of what is written and said. There is no proof. Only assumption. All religion is based on assumption. The only conclusion I am drawing is that you are all debating over a fictional tale as relevant as it may be to our modern day people.

 

I will just step out and let you all go on I don't need to get in the way here.

If you aren't bothering to even try to follow what's being said (and those comments show you aren't) how about you just leave the discussion to those who are managing to keep up.

 

 

Will any concessions be made to those who are interested in the subject but who cannot keep up?

[Sextus]

Will any concessions be made to those who are interested in the subject but who cannot keep up?

Plenty. I'm happy to go back over anything that people want me to elaborate on. But a comment like "that's not evidence of anything" when what was being discussed clearly was evidence relevant to the question of how the beliefs of the people who wrote certain texts are reflected in those texts is clearly from someone who isn't even bothering to read the previous posts. Ditto for an assertion "it's all fiction", as though that is somehow self-evident. People can believe that if they like, but just blurting it without backing it up with an argument is pretty pointless.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Will any concessions be made to those who are interested in the subject but who cannot keep up?

Plenty. I'm happy to go back over anything that people want me to elaborate on. But a comment like "that's not evidence of anything" when what was being discussed clearly was evidence relevant to the question of how the beliefs of the people who wrote certain texts are reflected in those texts is clearly from someone who isn't even bothering to read the previous posts. Ditto for an assertion "it's all fiction", as though that is somehow self-evident. People can believe that if they like, but just blurting it without backing it up with an argument is pretty pointless.

 

 

Thanks for the reply, Sextus.

 

And also thanks for being willing to elaborate.  

 

However, it's the issue of 'keeping up' with you that still troubles me somewhat.

I have many questions about Jesus, the Gospels and scripture as a whole and you seem to have the knowledge and means of answering some of them.  This pleases me.  But I find myself reluctant to put those questions to you.  I know for a fact that I cannot 'keep up' with you.  I also know that I'll probably phrase my questions wrongly, use incorrect terminology and also commit many other goofs, errors, logical fallacies and mistakes along the way.

 

So I'm left weighing up how to proceed here.

Do I go ahead and run the risk of testing your patience with my rookie-level blunders?  You see Tim (and I do apologize if I'm misinterpreting things) I look at the tone of your dialog in this thread and it seems to tell me that you don't suffer fools gladly.  That you probably won't have the patience to gently correct my mistakes and patiently walk me thru what you mean in a step-by-step fashion, explaining and clarifying as you go.

 

Unlike my avatar, I DO have an ego to bruise.

If the cost of putting questions about Jesus to you is personally too high, then I probably won't ask them.  I'll weigh up how to proceed, I'll find that I'm not prepared to go any further and just give up.  So what do I mean by 'too high'...?  Well, if I ask what you consider to be a dumb question will you...

 

A.  Deal with me gently and patiently so that I don't look like a dumbass in front of my fellow members.

 

Or...

 

B.  Deal with me without patience and gentleness, making me feel embarrassed in front of the others.

 

The cost of option B is personally too high for me.

I do have an ego to bruise and I just don't want to go there.  So I'll probably sit on my questions about Jesus and leave them unasked.  Which I think, would be a very sad outcome.  

.

.

.

I hope that I've explained where I'm coming from adequately and that I haven't misread things.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ravenstar]

BAA!!!! You're back!    

 

I hope you had a fabulous vacation

[mymistake]

 

The cost of option B is personally too high for me.

I do have an ego to bruise and I just don't want to go there.  So I'll probably sit on my questions about Jesus and leave them unasked.  Which I think, would be a very sad outcome.  

 

 

For me it was B.  Just put him on ignore.  Save yourself all the stress between now and then.

[Overcame Faith]

I am not making these remarks to anyone in particular. Rather, my remarks are directed at the general tenor and tone of this thread. And most importantly, especially considering the overall purpose of ExC, they are directed in favor of those who are either newly deconverted and need help or those who may still be Christians but have some serious doubts about their religion.

 

The issue of whether Jesus is a mythical character or a real person can be very important to the two categories of people I described above for whom ExC is primarily designed and intended to serve. If Jesus was mythical, then the very basis of Christianity has been demolished. On the other hand, if the Jesus character of the four Gospels in particular and the Epistles to a lesser degree was based on a real person but not the Son of God, born of a Virgin, miracle worker, crucified and risen messiah/savior then that is another piece of information that would be important to our newly deconverted or doubters who may still be clinging to Christianity.

 

Here is what I ask, most particularly of our members who are posting on this thread who are trained scholars. Please write your opinions, express your ideas, and make your arguments with our members in mind. Scholars tend to write in a language all their own and many of the folks who come here for help are not scholars. I can tell you that much of what has been written on this thread has been done, I am sure unintentionally,in a way that many of our members are having a hard time following, even though I am sure there is some interest by them. If you use what I call "a term of art" which is not widely known by the general population we serve on ExC, please, please explain the term in a way that the average, but intelligent, person who has not been trained in your areas of expertise can understand. Otherwise, all we have here is a debate among scholars, which is best left to a website dedicated to that purpose.

 

Now, I direct these remarks to our members who are still struggling with Christianity. You are our top priority on ExC. I want to encourage any and all of you who have an interest in this area to post your thoughts, comments, and, most importantly, your questions on this topic. I am sure that you will be treated with respect and your thoughts, comments, and questions will be addressed with kindness and respect. In fact, I know they will be because I, as moderator, will be watching carefully to ensure that is the case.

 

This is my post number 105. I quote it here for emphasis.

[Brother Jeff]

BAA, I've had some correspondence with Sextus/Tim outside of this thread and found him to be very helpful. He took the time, for example, to review my glorious website and give me a bluntly honest opinion of it based on his knowledge and education. Based on his bluntly honest review and what I've learned from him, I'm in the process of giving my "Jesus" page a much-needed update since the material on it was 10+ years old, and my views have changed since then, for the better. In that time, I have become aware that the supposed similarities between ancient savior-gods like Horus and Attis etc. and Jesus are no longer considered valid by serious biblical scholars. I have also become aware of the evidence for a real, historical Jesus that is enough for me personally to dismiss the "Jesus Myth" theory as nonsense. I've found Tim's replies here in this thread to be very helpful too, and I don't think you need to fear asking questions. You probably know me well enough by now to know that I don't suffer fools gladly either. When people start spouting religious bullshit at me, I will be more than happy to debunk it for them in a matter of minutes usually, and I might not be nice about it. But, if people really want to learn, I have patience most of the time. I suspect and hope that Tim is basically the same way.

 

For those here who have made up their minds that Jesus is a myth, probably nothing anyone can say will make a difference, as Tim has found out. That's atheist fundamentalism in action, and I despise fundamentalism in all of its evil forms, and that includes atheist fundamentalism. It all turns me off in a very big way, as do closed-minded people. Tim has presented ample evidence that a historical Jesus existed. Two mentions in Josephus and one mention in Tacitus is enough for me personally, since I am beginning to understand how dealing with evidence from ancient history works, and I don't really care either way if Jesus existed or not since he wasn't and isn't God, and my mind was not made up to begin with. Tim's outstanding responses to David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed" and his recent article on his site on the historical Jesus both really educated me and opened my eyes, and it's all highly recommended reading. I'm sure Tim can provide links to all that, or I am certainly willing to as well for anyone who is interested. 

 

If you want to put Tim on ignore and miss out on an education, go right ahead. I personally am grateful to have him here. I have lots going on in life at the moment and I am only loosely following this thread, but I am doing my best to keep up with it enough to make sense of what is being said. I have learned enough from Tim to have doubts about the conclusions Richard Carrier reaches in the video that I started this glorious thread with. Finding people who actually know what they are talking about is always awesome, and sometimes blunt honesty is refreshing. 

 

My 2 cents. If you don't agree or if it pisses you off, tough shit. I don't have the time or the inclination to argue about it.

[directionless]

I have also learned a lot from reading the posts from Sextus and some of his links.

 

Here is another piece of evidence in favor of a historic Jesus:

 

Even in the first century the Jews considered Christians to be dangerous heretics.

- Jospehus said James was stoned, and Josephus was involved in Jewish politics when that happened

- The Birkat haMinim was apparently inserted into the daily Jewish prayers in the first century to broadcast official disapproval of Christianity throughout Judaism.

 

If Jesus was not based on a real person, then why didn't the Jewish authorities use this information to attack Christianity? This was only a few decades after the claimed crucifixion.

 

Of course maybe I have some of my facts wrong or am missing some other facts. This is just my take on it right now.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Tim has presented ample evidence that a historical Jesus existed. Two mentions in Josephus and one mention in Tacitus is enough for me personally

I agree with you, Bro Jeff, and many others that the problems in the gospels create confidence that the dogmatic claims of orthodox Christianity are false.  I would appreciate hearing more from Tim and/or others about why we should accept the TF in Josephus and the reference in Tacitus as reliable evidence about a historical Jesus.

 

I have read a decent amount about the Testimonium Flavianum, i.e. the account of the ministry and execution of Jesus in Antiquities 18.63-64, although much less than what has been published.  I won't rehash all the arguments I've encountered.  I'll just say that it seems fishy to me that Josephus would consider the affair of Jesus as one of the "outrages" suffered by the Jews at the hands of Pilate.  "Outrage" is Louis Feldman's translation of the words that introduce the NEXT event in Josephus' presentation.  Right after the bit about Jesus, the text continues, "About this time another outrage threw the Jews into an uproar ... " (Ant. 18.65).  One would think that the words, "another outrage," imply that the immediately preceding events were too an outrage.  But why would Josephus present the affair of Jesus as a member of a list of outrages suffered by the Jews?  The narrative flows seamlessly from the end of 18.62, "Thus ended the uprising," to the beginning of 18.65, "About this time... etc."  Even if you take out the phrases that are obvious candidates for excision as interpolated ("This one was the messiah," etc.), the remaining parts seem "off" enough that it's rational to doubt their authenticity, as I see it.  I believe Feldman expresses more skepticism about the TF now than he did when he published the translation (Loeb) that I quote above.

 

As to Tacitus (the so-called Testimonium Taciteum), in Annales 15.44 we read how Nero punished the followers, "Chrestianos," of a certain Christus, etc.  Again, this whole passage fits with difficulty into the narrative context - here, the account of the great fire of Rome.  Wm. Benjamin Smith long ago ("The Silence of Josephus and Tacitus," The Monist 20 [1910] 515-50) argued that this passage was inserted into a manuscript of Tacitus as an embellishment of an account in Sulpicius Severus, a Christian writer of around 400.  I understand that Richard Carrier has an article arguing the same thesis coming out in Vigiliae Christianae (unless it's already out).  I won't go into all the details, but there was a detailed thread on this passage over on earlywritings.com:

 

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=344&hilit=sulpicius+severus&start=10

 

The gist of the "interpolation" position is that this passage too breaks up the narrative, introduces strange details, and looks more like an expansion of Sulpicius than Sulpicius looks like a condensation of it.  I did a good deal of searching on JSTOR for recent defenses of the authenticity of this passage but didn't find much.  Perhaps Tim or others know of some academic publications that defend the TT successfully.

 

--------------------------------

 

Adding:  Tim, this person, LK, disagrees with your view of the TT:

 

http://thoughtsphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-tacitus-annales-1544-independent-non.html

 

LK argues, not that the passage is interpolated, but that Tacitus' info came from Christians - maybe funneled through Pliny.  T's witness, then, would not be independent.  LK thinks Josephus' death somewhere between 95 and 105 is too early for confidence that Tacitus used Josephus as a source about Jesus in this part of the Annales, which came out around 120.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA!!!! You're back!    

 

I hope you had a fabulous vacation

 

Did so, R!  

 

Managed to contract the worst flu-like virus on the way back home tho'.  Headache, fever, chills, strep-like throat, etc.

But I'm almost over it and expect to be back to my usual self asap.

 

Thanks for asking!

 

(Hug)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

The cost of option B is personally too high for me.

I do have an ego to bruise and I just don't want to go there.  So I'll probably sit on my questions about Jesus and leave them unasked.  Which I think, would be a very sad outcome.  

 

 

For me it was B.  Just put him on ignore.  Save yourself all the stress between now and then.

 

 

That's ok, MM.  Each has to follow their own path.  

 

Overcome's keeping a watchful eye on this thread and I'm maintaining a holding pattern... interested to see how Tim'll respond.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Sextus]

BAA, I've had some correspondence with Sextus/Tim outside of this thread and found him to be very helpful. He took the time, for example, to review my glorious website and give me a bluntly honest opinion of it based on his knowledge and education. Based on his bluntly honest review and what I've learned from him, I'm in the process of giving my "Jesus" page a much-needed update since the material on it was 10+ years old, and my views have changed since then, for the better. In that time, I have become aware that the supposed similarities between ancient savior-gods like Horus and Attis etc. and Jesus are no longer considered valid by serious biblical scholars. I have also become aware of the evidence for a real, historical Jesus that is enough for me personally to dismiss the "Jesus Myth" theory as nonsense. I've found Tim's replies here in this thread to be very helpful too, and I don't think you need to fear asking questions. You probably know me well enough by now to know that I don't suffer fools gladly either. When people start spouting religious bullshit at me, I will be more than happy to debunk it for them in a matter of minutes usually, and I might not be nice about it. But, if people really want to learn, I have patience most of the time. I suspect and hope that Tim is basically the same way.

 

For those here who have made up their minds that Jesus is a myth, probably nothing anyone can say will make a difference, as Tim has found out. That's atheist fundamentalism in action, and I despise fundamentalism in all of its evil forms, and that includes atheist fundamentalism. It all turns me off in a very big way, as do closed-minded people. Tim has presented ample evidence that a historical Jesus existed. Two mentions in Josephus and one mention in Tacitus is enough for me personally, since I am beginning to understand how dealing with evidence from ancient history works, and I don't really care either way if Jesus existed or not since he wasn't and isn't God, and my mind was not made up to begin with. Tim's outstanding responses to David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed" and his recent article on his site on the historical Jesus both really educated me and opened my eyes, and it's all highly recommended reading. I'm sure Tim can provide links to all that, or I am certainly willing to as well for anyone who is interested. 

 

If you want to put Tim on ignore and miss out on an education, go right ahead. I personally am grateful to have him here. I have lots going on in life at the moment and I am only loosely following this thread, but I am doing my best to keep up with it enough to make sense of what is being said. I have learned enough from Tim to have doubts about the conclusions Richard Carrier reaches in the video that I started this glorious thread with. Finding people who actually know what they are talking about is always awesome, and sometimes blunt honesty is refreshing. 

 

My 2 cents. If you don't agree or if it pisses you off, tough shit. I don't have the time or the inclination to argue about it.

Thanks Jeff. To those who think I'm being somehow "impatient", I think it's amusing that at the same time that allegation was made above I got an e-mail from a fellow ancient history buff who had come across this thread who said "Dude - I don't know how you find the time and patience for those people". I responded that there were some here who seem to have traded Christian fundamentalism for an equally emotional and unthinking non-Christian substitute (whose posts I think I'll ignore from now on), but there are many others here who are genuinely looking for good scholarship and are open to proper historical arguments. I'm a sometimes contributor to the /r/badhistory subreddit, where historians let off steam about bad historical claims and pseudo history they have come across. "Bad atheist history", like the Jesus Myth thesis gets mocked there so regularly that the Mods there have to occasionally put a moratorium on it as a topic, just to give other topics some room. But as I've noted there, perhaps the crackpot and fringe atheist pseudo history gets so much prominence online because not enough of us who are historically literate and have the scholarship to do so bother to take the time to help fellow atheists sort out what is good scholarship and what is just emotionally appealing crap.

 

As I said a few pages back, when I first abandoned Christianity in my late teens I latched onto a number of fringe theories that I found very convincing at the time. It was only a few years later, with a history degree and some solid training in research, critical analysis and scepticism of amateur theorists under my belt, that I realised they were garbage. I try to remind myself of my own initial stumbles when I see people latching onto the first non-Christian explanation of the rise of Christianity that they find.

 

I have too many other projects in the pipeline at the moment. But perhaps what new unbelievers need is a basic "Historical Jesus for New Atheists" site that gives them a guide to the work of critical scholars but also warns them of the problems with some of the fringe ideas like the Jesus Myth thesis.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good to see you back, BAA!  Hope you're close to kicking that cold/flu.