Mythical vs. Historical Jesus

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I was raised Catholic and underwent a decade of Sunday School. As an apostate adult, I've become intrigued with the search for an historical Jesus, and the often rancorous debate between historicists and mythicists.

To distract me from my vestigial guilt for BBQ'ing on Good Friday instead of serving fish, I've posted the first of a three-part essay, summarizing my take on attempts to date the Passion:

http://imaginaryfriendjesus.wordpress.c ... rt-1-of-3/

I'd like to hear the thoughts & perspectives of others, and get recommendations for further reading or lines of inquiry.

(I'm also shamelessly trawling for blog hits. LOL.)

[Aneris]

Consider this one.
The Evolution of Jesus in the Bible by 43alley

[youtube]XKAHoYCWXF8[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Thanks, Aneris. That was very entertaining video with an excellent demolition of Lewis' moronic logic (sic.) I do wonder why 43alley accepts the trad christian dating of the gospels & Pauline epistles, when 1) Luke had to be written after Josephus' works; 2) The first Epistles & Markan gospel only appear c. 145, from Marcion? Otherwise, he does a good job pointing out the belated appearance of details in the JC story.

[16bitheretic]

I don't claim to know what to think in regards to whether there was a historical man who, like L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith, managed to use a cult of personality to spawn a following of religious adherents. It seems so many people who actually study the field disagree, but I can say that as a complete layperson I find the extreme lack of current documentation of non-Biblical writings referring to events in the Gospels to be pretty eye-raising. Obviously that doesn't disprove the existence of a Nazarene rabbi or cult leader who was successful at creating a brand name that lived after his death, but it doesn't bode well for the prospect either.

At the very least I think we can say for certain that the entire zombie population of the area didn't rise from their graves and walk around the streets of Jerusalem on a Friday evening some 1980 years ago :P

[Matt Cavanaugh]

At the very least I think we can say for certain that the entire zombie population of the area didn't rise from their graves and walk around the streets of Jerusalem on a Friday evening some 1980 years ago :P

LOL. You're referring to Matt. 51-53:

The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs ... and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

This passage proves very embarrassing to apologists, so they tend to pretend it doesn't exist. When forced to address it, they'll say, 'oh, sure, that's hyperbole, but the rest is trustworthy!'

[rayshul]

I haven't really been convinced by a historical Jesus, although have read many arguments on it. I did read a long series on one web forum which presented evidence (can't remember where :( ) but I came away more doubtful of a historical Jesus. I have not read the apocrypha though so there may be more in there.

[rayshul]

I also don't read the original Biblical language (can't remember if it was Hebrew?) but I would be interested in the style the Bible is written in - is it written as a factual document or as a parable? To me most translations I've seen support the idea of a parable.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

rayshul,

There's actually less "Jesus bio" in the apocrypha. The gospels were first written in Greek, by (it's surmised) hellenized Jews outside of Judea. They made numerous translation mistakes, such as using 'parthenos' ("virgin") for the hebrew 'alma' ("young woman"), when hebrew has a specific word, 'bethulah', for "virgin."

Modern English translations, btw, vary widely, and many engage in 'tidying up' of embarrassing phrases.

As for style, the gospels are essentially midrash, hebrew fictional exegesis on texts & traditional stories. It's something of a fluke that they've come to be treated as historical documents (though mostly because jack shit else exists.)

[Aneris]

I also don't read the original Biblical language (can't remember if it was Hebrew?) but I would be interested in the style the Bible is written in - is it written as a factual document or as a parable? To me most translations I've seen support the idea of a parable.

This resource is pretty good as shows you tons of translations side by side, which gives a better impression what the original conveyed. Here's my favorite line by the good Jesus:

New International Version (©2011)
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

New Living Translation (©2007)
And as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king--bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'"

English Standard Version (©2001)
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

[...]
Slay (κατασφάξατε)
Only here in New Testament. A strong word: slaughter; cut them down (κατά).

We see how they make it seem nicer. The original meaning is actually more along the lines of "cut to pieces / slaughter" (implied: like a pig). Christians maintain that the meaning is different than it seems...

Combine this with the Skeptics Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon.

[TheMan]

The Imaginary friend in Jesus link is a tidy article.

Is it safe to assume everyone here has read Bart Ehram?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The Imaginary friend in Jesus link is a tidy article.

Is it safe to assume everyone here has read Bart Ehram?

Thanks. You know it's a three-parter?

In a similar vein, a debunking of the nativity:
http://johnwsmart.net/2012/12/22/christ ... ls-part-1/
http://johnwsmart.net/2012/12/22/christ ... ls-part-2/


I've only read excerpts from Ehrman. I understand he's written 30 books (though some say he's written one book thirty times.)

[TheMan]

Yes, read all three parts.

The server crashed on a forum containing a long discussion with 3 very different Christians and their perspectives. This article will come in handy should the discussion resume in the near future.

[Michael K Gray]

The Imaginary friend in Jesus link is a tidy article.

Is it safe to assume everyone here has read Bart Ehram?

Whilst Bart Ehrman is often sober and guarded in his translations and interpretations he is, and his family are, utterly dependent on his continued "Jesus was a real person" bullshit shtick.
He got stuck in that rut early in his career, before he realised that it was totally unsupported, and (indeed) completely contra-indicated.
But his early naive writings gained him fame and power amongst an insular academic elite, and he will lose all of that if he spills the beans that Jeebers is a complete myth, from beginning to end.

His latest "book" is a travesty against academia.

A bunch of hurriedly-typed and misstenographed infantile and illogical "justifications" as to why the actual evidence does not matter a jot when it comes to his method:
1) Assume the conclusion. Vis: That Jeebers was an actual person.
2) Lie, fabricate, twist, defraud, con, strongarm one's detractors etc until they "give in" due to fatigue.

His latest book makes whatever-her-name-is Vogonish poetry look like Shakespeare.

I judge it to have more factual errors/bloopers per page than any other so-called academic tome that I have read.
Including MAD magazine.

[d4m10n]

I'm in complete agreement with MKG on this one. Ehrman is an excellent scholar pretty much of the time but in that last book he fails to seriously consider the possibility that there is no singular historical personage beneath all those layers of midrashic devotional fiction.

[Za-zen]

I'm in complete agreement with MKG on this one. Ehrman is an excellent scholar pretty much of the time but in that last book he fails to seriously consider the possibility that there is no singular historical personage beneath all those layers of midrashic devotional fiction.

I concur, it's as if he recoils at the idea, in The way that any believer recoils at the questioning of their a priori assumptions. It must be true! Why? Well because we have been constructing our arguments on that basis! And all those who have went before us have told us so!

Personally i'm in the camp of most of us here, in that whether or not there was an historical jesus, is as relevant as whether or not socrates was plato's construct. I.e, it doesn't really matter, and actually the question will never really be resolved, because you have the jesus cultists, who need there to be a jesus, in order for their cult to have a foundation, and they are legion, so they will never, ever accept that jesus was a construct. It just isn't going to happen, and the debunking evidence required to make them even reconsider that assumption just isn't there for obvious reasons.

It is an interesting academical question, of particular interest to those of us, who like to challenge assumptions, coupled with a love of knowledge, and on that question i would point people to carrier, as the dick knows his shit, and makes damn good arguments.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

* I saw the bad reviews for Erhman's last book. But are any of his earlier ones worth a peek?

* Any other authors worth picking up?

* Also, are there any online sources for skeptical dating of papyri and mss? (The datings by believers seem to be creeping steadily backwards in recent decades, perhaps as a reflexive circling of the wagons.)

* Oh, speaking of "legion", Za-zen, I believe I found a way to fairly firmly pin the origin of the Gadarene Swine pericope to no earlier than AD 66, possibly early 2nd century.

[Badger3k]

* I saw the bad reviews for Erhman's last book. But are any of his earlier ones worth a peek?

* Any other authors worth picking up?

* Also, are there any online sources for skeptical dating of papyri and mss? (The datings by believers seem to be creeping steadily backwards in recent decades, perhaps as a reflexive circling of the wagons.)

* Oh, speaking of "legion", Za-zen, I believe I found a way to fairly firmly pin the origin of the Gadarene Swine pericope to no earlier than AD 66, possibly early 2nd century.

Despite his latest gaffe, I found most of Ehrman's earlier books worth reading. You just have to keep in mind that his hypothesis is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he sees all evidence in light of that. His "Misquoting Jesus" was made for laypeople, and I found it light, but still not a bad read.

Other than that, from the mythicist side, Robert M Price is a fun read (even if I think he goes a bit far in his speculations - some of his ideas seem tenuous at best). Earl Doherty's rewrite of The Jesus Puzzle is good, but gets pretty technical - I lack the background to make a judgement call on it. Despite Carrier going off the rails, I've found his books to also be interesting.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

* I've liked what I've read from Doherty online, but found his presentation a bit disjointed. Glad to know he's done a rewrite of The Jesus Puzzle;

* Re. Ehrman's thesis, apocalyptic preachers were a dime-a-dozen back then, and many were surely named "Jesus." Details or legends of one or more of them may well have contributed to our composite JC, but it seems a stretch to ID 'THE original Jesus';

* I've only read Carrier online, and his articles and reviews were often the jumping-off points for my early explorations. Carrier's a fairly clumsy writer, however. And the Baysian stuff made my eyes glaze over;

* I purchased Price's The Christ Myth Theory, and found it invaluable in helping me understand how pseudo-historical details could accrete to a mythic cult at a fairly late date. I do feel Price overreached by attempting to link every single bit of the gospels to the OT. I also found his extended quoting of OT & NT verses tedious, just padding an otherwise thin book;

* Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason was also useful, despite Mason's frustrating tendency to shy away from the conclusions derived from his own research, whenever those conclusions embarrass his faith;

* I just came across some articles by Marc Goodacre, who's hot for Marcion, and rejects the need for Q. I found his arguments against the trad synoptic models valid, but his own proposed model just as flawed. In general, I find the formulation of synoptic models a major waste of time, so long as one: a) ignores the apocrypha; b) works from the premise of a mid-first century oral tradition as the source;

* This blogger (alas, a former atheist turned recent convert) gives a comprehensive synopsis of Marcion v. Luke, along with a compelling argument for Marcion as the source of Luke:
https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/


* How about the early guys: Baur, v. Harnack, et al.?


My own hunch is that JC was neither completely historical (i.e., a single person at the origin), nor completely ahistorical (mythic origin larded with a spurious bio), rather, a composite of numerous historical echos, midrash, and myth. Figuring out what all those pieces were, how they fit together, and how it came about, is like solving a murder mystery, and an ongoing hobby for me. And, of course, it all got started with THE LIFE OF BRIAN.

[Badger3k]

I did find this book by Detering on Amazon Kindle - The Fabricated Paul, Christianity in the Twilight. Hadn't found it before in English, and the cost is nice ($3.70 US). Definitely thought provoking, even if I had to roll my eyes at the authors religious leanings (i.e., most of the last chapter). Worth reading to get a look at things we normally don't get unless we speak German.

[Badger3k]

Damn, missed this one - Doherty's response to Ehrman, previously released at Vridar, and reedited and updated End of an Illusion.

If you enjoyed reading his work online, you can now take it with you (electronically speaking).

Apparently his revised book is also on Kindle (Jesus, neither god nor man

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Thanks for those recommendations, Badger. I'll have to get the kindle app for Mac and DL them.

I do suspect that Paul is a 2nd Century entity or fabrication.


(NB, ich kann Deutsch lesen.)