The Christ Myth Theory: Hoax Or Plausible Theory?

[Mythra]

So Doherty approaches "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4) on two different fronts.  One is based in a technical discussion of the greek word for "born".  My pea brain doesn't follow the nuances of greek, so I bypassed that explanation.

 

The other explanation is, as I thought, interpolation.  But he does back it with a credible argument.

 

Marcion had written an account of the galatians epistle in which those passages read differently.  Although we don't have Marcion's writing anymore, we have Tertullian's "Against Marcion" which shows what Marcion claimed.  So here is how Galatians 4: 3-6 read according to Marcion (mid 2nd century)

 

As a man I say,

When we were barely born, 

We were enslaved

Under the elements of the cosmos

But when the fullness of time came

God sent forth his son

That he might purchase those under law

And that we may receive adoption

God sent forth the Spirit of his Son

Into your hearts crying "Abba, Father"

 

As you can see, there was no "born of a woman" in the passage.

 

So, I don't know if it's a good argument or not.  Just relaying the explanation of Doherty. 

[Guest Furball]

Pretty suspicious that god walked the face of the earth as a man and not a thing was written about it in any historical texts. I find that to be one of the most damning (no pun intended) critiques against jesus existence. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

So Doherty approaches "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4) on two different fronts.  One is based in a technical discussion of the greek word for "born".  My pea brain doesn't follow the nuances of greek, so I bypassed that explanation.

 

Here's the Greek of that passage:

 

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

 

The verb γίγνομαι basically means "come to be," so it can refer to birth or to many other forms of generation. I guess Doherty can insist that it doesn't HAVE to mean "born." The Latin Vulgate has "factum ex muliere" literally, "made from a woman."

 

But then, does the Doherty-Carrier position have to posit the existence in the sublunary heaven of a "woman" who is also descended from David? I suppose this is where they pull in corruptions of Middle Platonism.

 

I never knew what to make of the discrepancies between Marcion and the canonical forms of the NT.

[qadeshet]

There may have been a first century individual, or individuals,  perhaps named Yeshua, who may have been the inspiration for the Gospel Myth. Does that mean that Jesus existed? I put the probalility of a historical "Jesus" at about 30%, maybe a little lower than Carrier. The silence of all his contemporaries, including Philo of Alexandra, is more than suspicious. However, all we have is probalility. Is a historical Jesus any more likely than a historical Heracles? The Gospel accounts are just another version of the Dying and Rising Sun god Myth. The Sun turns water into wine, withers the fig trees in Summer, and is said to calm the storm and "walk" on water. The Sun is followed by twelve signs, or Deciples. One of the Deciples was even a twin. The Sun god is born of a virgin, as in Virgo. Below is a list of my favorite suspects who may have contributed to the Christ Myth.

 

Jesus ben Ananias

 

Jesus the Samaritan

 

 

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.

 

Jesus the Egyptian

 

Josephus "The Jewish War"

 

[261] But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed everyone to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

 

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!

[wellnamed]

Here's the Greek of that passage:

 

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

 

The verb γίγνομαι basically means "come to be," so it can refer to birth or to many other forms of generation. I guess Doherty can insist that it doesn't HAVE to mean "born."

But various forms of that verbal root are used to refer to ordinary birth incredibly often in the New Testament.

[mymistake]

For me it is hard to figure out which of the "grey area" Pauline letters are authentic.  But let's assume that Paul actually referred to a human Jesus.  That doesn't get historical Jesus off the hook.  There have been plenty of fictional characters that were given normal births and Earthly lives in their story.  First century Palestine was filled with men named Jesus/Joshua.  If their lives did not match the story of Christ then they were not Christ even though they were named Jesus.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Here's the Greek of that passage:

 

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

 

The verb γίγνομαι basically means "come to be," so it can refer to birth or to many other forms of generation. I guess Doherty can insist that it doesn't HAVE to mean "born."

But various forms of that verbal root are used to refer to ordinary birth incredibly often in the New Testament.

 

yeah, that's a problem for the mythicist hypothesis. As I said earlier, Doherty et al. have to bring in more auxililary assumptions than historicists do, as far as I can see.

[Mythra]

Ficino!  I didn't know you had a familiarity with greek.  Nice!   Self taught or formally trained?  

[Mythra]

So see if this makes sense: 

 

Doherty's explanation goes like this;

 

In the phrase "born of a woman" the word in question is ginomai. 

 

Other places where Paul uses this word

 Philippians 2:7  made (ginomai)  in the likeness of men.

1 corinthians 15:45  Adam became (ginomai) a living soul

1 corinthians 1:30  Christ is made (ginomai) for us wisdom

 

 

hebrews 1:4  Christ becoming (ginomai) so much superior to the angels

 

Pseudo-Paul

Ephesians 3:7  I became (ginomai) a minister of the gospel

 

Doherty then goes on to say, when Paul means "born" as in a physical birth, he uses the word gennao  (with a macron over the "o")

 

Romans 9:11  Children not yet born. (gennao)

Galatians 4:23 and 4;29   the son / one born (gennao)  - this follows soon after "born of a woman"  .  Doherty asks why did Paul switch verbs here if they both meant the same thing to him?

 

ginomai is also not translated as born in Hebrews 11:23, 1John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1 or 5:18. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Mythra, good citations. Without doing a separate word study of my own, I'm convinced that the verse usually translated "born of woman" doesn't HAVE to mean "born."

 

In answer to your question above, I earned a Ph.D. in ancient Greek and Latin and publish stuff on texts written in those languages. I spent most of my career teaching in private school, and nine years as head of two different high schools. Now that I'm retired I'm back to focusing on research and scholarly writing. Just because I have a Ph.D. doesn't stop me from saying many stupid things, though.

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

[mymistake]

 

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

 

Well that certainly gives me pause.  I appreciate you sharing that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

 

Well that certainly gives me pause.  I appreciate you sharing that.

 

These folks don't "work on" the problem of the historical Jesus, though. There are so many sub-fields within every discipline that people's specialities are very narrow.

 

Still, it gives me pause, too. I'd basically LIKE to think that Jesus never existed, but so far I don't see a way to make that case compelling.

[Storm]

 

 

 

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

 

Well that certainly gives me pause.  I appreciate you sharing that.

 

These folks don't "work on" the problem of the historical Jesus, though. There are so many sub-fields within every discipline that people's specialities are very narrow.

 

Still, it gives me pause, too. I'd basically LIKE to think that Jesus never existed, but so far I don't see a way to make that case compelling.

 

I think this is where I struggle too. It makes sense to me that scholars find it more likely than not that a man named Jesus who is an approximate ideology of the Christian Jesus, however, I think some one the compelling questions asked by Carrier and Doherty and Price certainly have merit and taint the relative "certainty", if you will, of those scholars. I doubt any of them would say that they definitively, without a doubt, believe that he existed. I guess in my mind, if there are cracks in the foundation, so to speak, then there is weakness and room for the opposite.

I am certainly clouded by my current deconversion process and I am certainly not a scholar by any means, but I think good points are raised by the aforementioned mythicists and my disdain for Christianity seem to be leading me towards the side of myth. I will gladly admit that I can be persuaded otherwise, though. 

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

 

Well that certainly gives me pause.  I appreciate you sharing that.

 

These folks don't "work on" the problem of the historical Jesus, though. There are so many sub-fields within every discipline that people's specialities are very narrow.

 

Still, it gives me pause, too. I'd basically LIKE to think that Jesus never existed, but so far I don't see a way to make that case compelling.

 

 

What Historians and Scholars believe, or don't believe, doesn't change the probability. Only the evidence affects the probability.

 

"Most scholars think Jesus existed"

[Mythra]

Ficino:  I never knew you had those kind of credentials and knowledge in Greek and Latin!   You do such a good imitation of a normal guy! 

 

Nice to know we have a resource here when we get the occasional visitor who wants to show the dumb ex-christians that we have no idea what we're talking about.

 

For me, the hypothesis of Jesus Myth makes the most sense when trying to make it fit with the evidence we have available.  It's not that I WANT it to be true. I don't care one way or the other.  I just have never seen any counter-argument that blows the myth hypothesis out of the water.

 

The historicist position - even all of the (many)  minimalist historicist positions also have sets of suppositions and assumptions that come along with them.  And pieces that don't fit.  

 

I'll go on studying the subject because I find it interesting.  And if the evidence convinces me, I'll have no problem changing my mind.  

[Geezer]

An examination of the historical information available, and a dose of common sense, made the decision of whether the Gospel is myth or historical fact an easy decision for me.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

 

 

Among the professional ancient historians I know, nobody thinks that Jesus did not exist. And among those I know, all are either Jewish or religiously unaffiliated or, in one case, very liberal Lutheran.

 

Well that certainly gives me pause.  I appreciate you sharing that.

 

These folks don't "work on" the problem of the historical Jesus, though. There are so many sub-fields within every discipline that people's specialities are very narrow.

 

Still, it gives me pause, too. I'd basically LIKE to think that Jesus never existed, but so far I don't see a way to make that case compelling.

 

 

What Historians and Scholars believe, or don't believe, doesn't change the probability. Only the evidence affects the probability.

 

"Most scholars think Jesus existed"

 

Agreed. I didn't say it did. But framing a problem, collecting the evidence, assessing what counts or doesn't count as evidence, drawing conclusions, and presenting them with the right amount of certainty or uncertainty, is what scholars do. So, though it's a fallacy to use authority in a demonstrative proof, I think non-specialists in a field do well to start from the "state of the question" as it's been hammered out by people who have the requisite training and who have spent years working on, and publishing about, the problem.

 

Since it's a pretty good bet that the gospels are already propaganda pieces, and the WHOLE STORY is framed for propaganda purposes, it's a big methodological problem, how to try to detach "nuggets" of historical fact from writings that are themselves already interpretations.

 

I think of the quotation often ascribed to Nietzsche: "there are no facts, only interpretations." That certainly is true in the quest for the historical Jesus, as in the quest for the historical Socrates.

 

Finally, I try to be aware of my own biases as well as I can. I notice that the people who push the mythicist position tend to be atheists. I'm an atheist. It would seem to be in my interest if the world can be convinced that Jesus never existed. So I don't want to latch onto mythicism BECAUSE it may seem to further my political interests. But what do I know?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ficino:  I never knew you had those kind of credentials and knowledge in Greek and Latin!   You do such a good imitation of a normal guy! 

 

Thanks, Mythra. I take this as a great compliment. Maybe decades of teaching, and trying to "discipline," teenagers helped me imitate a normal guy more consistently.

[Mythra]

Carrier also addresses  "minimal history" probabilities in his book.  Here are the parameters that he uses when discussing both hypotheses:

 

Taken from a book review on nobeliefs.com - written by Jim Walker.

 

The Minimal Theory of Historicity     1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death. 2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities. 3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

 

  The Minimal Jesus Myth Theory     1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other. 2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration   (such as prophecy, past and present). 3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm. 4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth,   in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals. 5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).
 

[Mythra]

From the same book review - and elements that are explored in Carrier's book. (On the Historicity of Jesus)  

 

Element 2: When Christianity began, Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.

Element 3: When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or savior anointed (literally of figuratively 'christened', hence a 'Christ') to help usher in God's supernatural kingdom.

Element 4: Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism.

Element 7: The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the very messianic fever of the age, which by the most obvious (but not originally intended) interpretation predicted the messiah's arrival in the early first century, even (by some calculations) the very year of 30 CE. This text was popularly known and widely influential, and was known and regarded as scripture by the early Christians.

Element 8: Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from God about the coming messiah, in both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.

Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.

Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices).

Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth.

Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.

Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them.

Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies.

Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea.

Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings.

Element 40: [T]he Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such as way.

Element 41: The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture (1 Enoch).

Element 44: In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

What Historians and Scholars believe, or don't believe, doesn't change the probability. Only the evidence affects the probability.

 

"Most scholars think Jesus existed"

 

 

Yes, that is very true.  However I have no skills in ancient languages.  It's not a small thing to buck against expert consensus.

 

Maybe I don't understand the myth theory.  It's obvious to me that many first century men were named Jesus.  Doesn't it all depend on if one of these real men inspired the Christ story?  If the story was instead inspired by other religions then Christ was a myth even if we can't prove that was the case.  But with Jesus (or rather Joshua/Yeshua) being such a common name it would have been normal from most religions to have a Jesus among their clergy.

[Guest Furball]

To the scholars who do think he existed, I would like to see what they have to say. I have read ehrman's book "did jesus exist" as well as lee strobel's "the case for the real jesus" and neither was compelling to convince me. Although lee strobel did consult biased christians for his results. I have read strobel's "the case for a creator," and that did give me pause. I am with mymistake, as far as my studies go, history proves jesus to be an all too common name at the time he supposedly existed. When scholars say they agree that jesus did exist, what I am hearing is, is that they are referring to the jesus that the scriptures are referring to. There is no room to say that jesus did exist, yet say all he taught in the new testament was hogwash and we can throw away his teachings as if he did not exist. Either jesus christ as set forth in the new testament does exist or does not. If scholars believe he did, and can prove it with incontrovertible facts/evidence, then hell is real as well and i need to reconvert back to christianity a.s.a.p.

[Mythra]

 Either jesus christ as set forth in the new testament does exist or does not. If scholars believe he did, and can prove it with incontrovertible facts/evidence, then hell is real as well and i need to reconvert back to christianity a.s.a.p.

Oh, me too!  I'm not at all interested in that place where the worm does not dieth!

 

When we use the term "scholars" perhaps a distinction should be made between "biblical scholars" and "ancient historians" ? 

 

I have to think that the number of PhD level scholars that accept the gospels as written is relatively small.  But I'm sure they are out there. (way out there)

[Mythra]

In my previous years here at ExC and over at what was called then FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board), we encountered opposition from so called experts.  They had a PhD.  But when pressed, it was discovered their degree was in English or the Russian Revolution or something.  What those guys think about Jesus doesn't count. 

[Mythra]

 

 

 

 

What Historians and Scholars believe, or don't believe, doesn't change the probability. Only the evidence affects the probability.

 

"Most scholars think Jesus existed"

 

 

Yes, that is very true.  However I have no skills in ancient languages.  It's not a small thing to buck against expert consensus.

 

Maybe I don't understand the myth theory.  It's obvious to me that many first century men were named Jesus.  Doesn't it all depend on if one of these real men inspired the Christ story?  If the story was instead inspired by other religions then Christ was a myth even if we can't prove that was the case.  But with Jesus (or rather Joshua/Yeshua) being such a common name it would have been normal from most religions to have a Jesus among their clergy.

 

It all depends on how you think Christianity got started. 

 

If you think there was a Jesus of Nazareth, but the majority of the gospel accounts were later made up after Jesus died, that's considered a historicist.