|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Whence arose the "There Was No Historical Jesus" assertion?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Does anyone know how, when, and by whom the notion that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character got started? I'm seeing this assertion increasingly on internet fora and social media. It contrasts markedly with the long-established position held by many persons that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical, purely human figure, absent any divinity.
I do note that this seemingly new position that Jesus of Nazareth is entirely mythology seems to be associated with a generally derisive attitude toward religion, and with a rather militant or at least aggressively vociferous atheism.
I don't recall coming across this position before a couple of years ago (more or less), certainly not to any great extent. Now it seems increasingly common. When and how did it arise?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I believe it arises because people are ignorant but they get the opportunity to inflict their ignorance on others via social media. Said people lack knowledge of Christianity and history and believe that their claim that Jesus didn't exist is just as good as any academic, scholar/historian who claims he did. They are incapable of assessing the truth of any historical claim and they influence others who are as ignorant as themselves.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
The best known proponent which predates the internet is G.A. Wells. I think I'm right in saying his position has become slightly more nuanced over the years (which isn't to say it has become any more convincing) and moved from a position of 'the historical Jesus never existed', to a position of 'there may have been a Rabbi called Jesus but St Paul and the early evangelists covered this figure with so much Hellenistic legend and myth that he might as well not existed for all the difference it makes'.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Sorry - double post. The starting point for people like Wells and internet pushers of the same idea (e.g. Earl Doherty - although he has written books as well)tends that the historical evidence of Jesus outside the NT isn't reliable i.e. is secondary, corrupt or merely repeats what Christians later said, and the Gospels and Acts are too filled with the miraculous and contradict other historians and archeologically relevant finds of the time.
[ 29. June 2013, 14:48: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It is very much linked with various atheists, in fact, anti-theists, and is also a largely internet phenomenon.
I used to take part in debates on it, but eventually wearied of anti-theists making idiotic statements, which just revealed a lack of understanding of how historical method works.
For example, you often find a confusion between historical Jesus and the Biblical Christ. Thus some mythers will say stuff like, 'how could a man walk on water?', which shows a lamentable muddle.
Some of the arguments for mythicism also seem remarkably convoluted - see for example, Doherty's stuff about the spiritual realm, where Christ is crucified. Eh?
I see it as rather analogous to creationism and 9/ll 'truth'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Perhaps reading the Wikipedia Article on the quest for the historical Jesus may be useful. The statement is not as far reaching as it seems.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is one of the well-known debates on an atheist forum. It runs the gamut from sensible stuff, written by people with historical training, to barmy stuff written by anti-theists, who just think that abolishing Jesus from history will strike a blow for atheism, or something. Caution, it ran for years, and is still running! 1700 pages at the last count, and over 30, 000 posts, many just repeating stuff from two years ago. Bizarre really. In fact, it goes back longer than that, as this is the reincarnation from the old Dawkins forum, which was shut down.
It was through debates like this that I realized how irrational some atheists could be.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html
[ 29. June 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I believe it arises because people are ignorant but they get the opportunity to inflict their ignorance on others via social media.
I think this is right on-target as far as it goes. My sense is that some folks have felt quite put-upon by ignorant Christians taking every opportunity to inflict their ignorance on them, and are striking back in a way that they think will achieve parity of irritaion.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It was through debates like this that I realized how irrational some atheists could be.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html
I've only read the first two pages, and I've seen some restrained, intelligent posts in those. Does it get worse after that?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I believe it arises because people are ignorant but they get the opportunity to inflict their ignorance on others via social media.
I think this is right on-target as far as it goes. My sense is that some folks have felt quite put-upon by ignorant Christians taking every opportunity to inflict their ignorance on them, and are striking back in a way that they think will achieve parity of irritaion.
--Tom Clune
I think the mythicists (and note not all atheists are mythicists, I'm certainly not one) are beguiled by a beautiful idea but are ignorant or ignoring the evidence against. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend. Personally I think there is a lot of legend but a basic historical core does exist.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It also follows the pattern of some other figures. Homer, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Prester John were all thought by some to be real people, but today are more generally considered to be unhistorical, or largely so.
There is no limit to how much of the bible can be doubted, and questioning the historicity of Jesus is an attractively dramatic move.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
It all sounds very 1930s to me when this idea had a sound airing
Wasn't it Albert Schweitzer who opined that the quest for the historical Jesus was almost impossible - I forget now......but one of you Kergmania people might know?
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, you often find a confusion between historical Jesus and the Biblical Christ. Thus some mythers will say stuff like, 'how could a man walk on water?', which shows a lamentable muddle.
I find this fascinating. I would make the assumption that most Christmas believe that Christ preformed miracles of some sort. Can you unpack this for me? Surely if Jesus existed he was either just a man or man and God?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
I don't know as it's such a long time when I was reading about it now, but I think that was what Schweitzer was getting at - the historical Christ is intermingled with the miracle performing Christ
Of course if you reject his miracles - or their reports - it still doesn't necessarily follow that the former did not exist - the gospels are then seen as more of a biography rather than a Trevelyan or an Elton....
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I've always wondered what the point of this claim was. Especially when it's just asserted, and has no real compelling reason to be believed other than the lack of evidence outside the NT. Why would there be any? It's not like he had a Social Security number and a facebook page.
I wonder what kind of external evidence people who make this assertion think there ought to be.
The NT makes Jesus look pretty spectacular, but we all know that's polemic. The author of John's Gospel even states outright that his point in writing is "so that you may believe," and Luke says something similar to his intended reader. But clearly both Jesus and his early followers were pretty easy to miss, or ignore, for most folks. Even the governments weren't going to take much note of them - aside from an execution here or imprisonment there, but there were so many "messiahs" and revolutionaries around at the time, why would the governments keep records about them, especially after their deaths? It was in their best interest to make these people go away, not retain their stories. So what external evidence is there supposed to be?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The point of the claim - where I'm seeing it crop up on the internet - just seems to be to express a fundamental hostility toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. I found the suggested Wikipedia reading to be interesting and informative about some of the origins - the more scholarly ones - of the notion of a completely mythic Jesus. However, I tend to see the assertion of this claim on the internet - again where I'm finding it - to come across as a more emotionally weighted rejectionist stance, also in which all types of Christians are ignorantly lumped together as intellectually lacking or worse.
It's just interesting to me that things have gone from a non-divine, rather trouble-making historical Jesus who might even warrant admiration in some ways for being a counter-cultural agitator, to an unsupported assertion that the guy never existed at all. I find the latter position to be intuitively implausible, if nothing else. This does seem to go hand in hand with caricaturing Christian belief and approach to the scriptures in a way that would only apply to extreme fundies, and which doesn't even begin to grasp the nuanced, questioning faith of large numbers of Christians.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
It all sounds very 1930s to me when this idea had a sound airing
Wasn't it Albert Schweitzer who opined that the quest for the historical Jesus was almost impossible - I forget now......but one of you Kergmania people might know?
Yes, Schweitzer said something like that. Bultman also famously said that he thought we could know almost nothing concerning the historical Jesus. What was important, was the faith and proclaimation of the early church and the challenge to believers today.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: It was through debates like this that I realized how irrational some atheists could be.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html
I've only read the first two pages, and I've seen some restrained, intelligent posts in those. Does it get worse after that?
It's a reasonable thread at first - watch out for Tim ONeill, a well-known atheist, who was historically academically trained, and is completely contemptuous of mythers, but also is very detailed in his critique of them. He also has a good web-site somewhere.
But later on, it becomes very repetitive, and you also get the silly stuff, basically just anti-theists saying 'isn't Christianity awful?'
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, you often find a confusion between historical Jesus and the Biblical Christ. Thus some mythers will say stuff like, 'how could a man walk on water?', which shows a lamentable muddle.
I find this fascinating. I would make the assumption that most Christmas believe that Christ preformed miracles of some sort. Can you unpack this for me? Surely if Jesus existed he was either just a man or man and God?
Well, the question of historicity is separate from stuff like miracles and so on. Most historians won't even look at this kind of material, as history is basically a naturalistic discipline.
But you find mythers saying, Jesus can't have existed, because no-one can walk on water. This is a complete mash-up of historicity and non-historicity.
Thus Caesar was seen as a god - does this mean he didn't exist?
Sai Baba, the famous guru, who died recently, has an incredible number of miracles accredited to him - levitation, miracle cures, materialization of objects out of nowhere, etc. - but he certainly existed.
So this is a well-known process - historical figure with legendary accretions. Elvis lives!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
We should not rationalize any miracles. We need to interpret all Scripture in the context of its times, listening for God's message to us now. Some miracles may be healings of psychological illnesses; others of physical affliction. Lazarus was raised from a real death.
Each miracle points to God's power and love, inviting repentance and faith in God's desire to save. Jesus, for example, healed the paralyzed man (Mark 2:1-12) revealing that God is able to forgive sins. Other miracles reveal God's generosity or power over destructive evil.
Whenever we see people healed both in body and soul (miracles still happen) we know God is at work, revealing the kingdom and making it a present reality.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
rather than a Trevelyan or an Elton....
You're showing your age - which is obviously about the same as mine!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Schweitzer didn't so much dismiss the historicity of Jesus as such, as he did the various versions of the "Historical Jesus" thrown up by the Questers.
He then went on and produced his own version - the ethically noble but ultimately deluded figure who throws himself on the wheel of history in an attempt to force God's hand, and then realises on the cross that he has been mistaken ("My God, my God..")
The last and best word on the Quest was that of George Tyrell who said, of Harnack in particular, that he looked at the Jesus of history down a deep well and saw his own face reflected at the bottom.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ProgenitorDope
Apprentice
# 16648
|
Posted
As for the "when" of this, it's an old idea. If what they told me in college is true, Voltaire believed Jesus was myth so at least as old as The Enlightenment.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The real issue is how much continuity exists between the Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith.
If that's the issue, then people who deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth are the polar opposite of fundamentalist.
Fundamentalist: "The Christ of faith is the same as the Historical Jesus, so all we should learn about is the Christ of faith."
Radical atheist: "There is no Historical Jesus, so all we have is the Christ of faith."
There is a surprising similarity between the two.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I know this is a little off topic, although it is somewhat related, but I do find it very curious that so many of the more militant and aggressive atheists seem to focus solely on Christianity. It's as if there isn't any other religion in the world, or they simply aren't aware of the wider world. I don't think I've ever come across an urge to demythologise Mohammed or Buddha, or even aggressively attack any other religion at all for that matter.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Well Buddha is already a myth. Even those bits which are historical are treated by many buddhists as myth ie teaching a profound universal truth. I don't think the truths of Buddhism rely on history in the same way as they do in Christianity.
Mohammed wrote things, conquered places etc, so the 'not historical' argument has even less traction than with Jesus. The other main difference is that Mohammed didn't work miracles so there isn't that problem to overcome.
Possibly people have the urge to attack or debunk the faith they were brought up in which for many in Europe, USA and Canada would be Christianity.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
ISTM that it probably goes back 2000 years. This is just another manifestation of it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@quetzalcoatl
Lets say I was having a debate with a Christian. And they claimed that Jesus preformed miracles. If later in the debate I referenced those miracles in relation to the existence of Jesus and was told that actually for the sake of that argument I should ignore the previous claims about Jesus it would seem odd to me.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know this is a little off topic, although it is somewhat related, but I do find it very curious that so many of the more militant and aggressive atheists seem to focus solely on Christianity. It's as if there isn't any other religion in the world, or they simply aren't aware of the wider world. I don't think I've ever come across an urge to demythologise Mohammed or Buddha, or even aggressively attack any other religion at all for that matter.
Not sure I'd concur with that, at least not as far as the "New Atheists" are concerned. Dawkins never misses a chance to bash Islam, and of course Hitchens' views on the religion of Muhammed were well known. Hitch also dedicated an entire chapter of his book God Is Not Great to trashing Hinduism and Buddhism.
Granted, the NAs don't speak for all atheists, but they're certainly the most prominent avatars of the idea at the present time, and are much imitated by their followers on the internet and elsewhere.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@quetzalcoatl
Lets say I was having a debate with a Christian. And they claimed that Jesus preformed miracles. If later in the debate I referenced those miracles in relation to the existence of Jesus and was told that actually for the sake of that argument I should ignore the previous claims about Jesus it would seem odd to me.
Well, again this is just a muddle. The question of historical Jesus is not a religious question, but a historical one, and is therefore, subject to historical method.
It is nothing to do with Christianity, although some anti-theists probably feel that getting rid of Jesus will serve them well!
But most of them know diddley-doddle about history, to be quite frank, and especially ancient history. It's just a fact that there are often few documents or coins or monuments for many figures - see for example, Boudicca, known only by hearsay really.
The best argument for HJ is parsimony really - that the simplest explanation for all the documents and so on, is that a Jewish preacher called Jesus did exist, and was killed by the Romans. All the stuff about miracles is irrelevant to this argument. HJ is not a religious thesis.
[ 30. June 2013, 08:45: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Another way of expressing this is that many atheists accept that Jesus existed, but not as God. Thus you can split HJ from the theological Christ - and this is what historians do in the main.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
George, I think there are too many nots there, aren't there?
Historians generally accept that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus. They don't investigate stuff like miracles or the resurrection, although they may investigate people's beliefs in those things.
Similarly they accept that Boudicca existed, although there seems to be one piece of hearsay about her, from Tacitus, who claims that his father-in-law fought against her, possibly in the Legio II Augusta - this was the well-known Agricola. The commander of this legion is supposed to have committed suicide after a defeat by Boudicca.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are some interesting books on this - Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus Exist?' is available on kindle; and E. P. Sanders 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' is good.
If you want to look at the mythers, then Doherty's books are available, e.g. 'The Jesus Puzzle'; also a ton of stuff on-line - see the web-site cited above (RatSkep).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
Mohammed wrote things, conquered places etc, so the 'not historical' argument has even less traction than with Jesus. The other main difference is that Mohammed didn't work miracles so there isn't that problem to overcome.
The claim of Islam is centred more on the character of the Koran (as given from God) than the historicity of Mohammed. There are the beginnings of higher critical scholarship (Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq and others), which tend to contradict many of the traditional claims made about the character of the Koran.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ProgenitorDope:
As for the "when" of this, it's an old idea. If what they told me in college is true, Voltaire believed Jesus was myth so at least as old as The Enlightenment.
IIRC, there was a movement during the Enlightenment that assumed that practically all classical history was myth, or at least argued that the evidence for most classical historical figures is so scanty that they might as well be mythical.
(That's also based on something I read at university - I can't remember any more details.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's one of the jokes about some of the mythers, that if you follow their guidelines on ancient history, hardly anybody existed except Caesar!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I also have doubts about the reasoning "We'll only believe that person X existed if we have a person Y that knew him directly and reported on him".
How do we know that person Y really existed, that he didn't make the report up, or that the report wasn't made up by someone else?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Does anyone know how, when, and by whom the notion that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character got started? I'm seeing this assertion increasingly on internet fora and social media.
...
I don't recall coming across this position before a couple of years ago (more or less), certainly not to any great extent. Now it seems increasingly common. When and how did it arise?
I think it derives from two things. The first is backlash from inerrancy. If you are brought up to believe the bible is either all true or all false and find one bit of it is false, you can follow the logic to it all being. And a lot of Old Testament history turns out to not be true under serious investigation, and that the Testamonium Flavianum is very probably an interpolation, possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea.
The second is quite simple wishful thinking by certain hardline atheists. It makes the whole of Christianity look ridiculous.
My take, for what it's worth, is quite simple. Why would anyone bother to invent an apocalyptic preacher in Palestine in that sort of time period?
And the joke about the mythers I heard was the two Oxford dons sitting in a courtyard, each one proving that the other was a myth.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure where the whole Christ-myth thing originated, but I do know one thing for certain: the people spouting this stuff are either really bad historians (Doherty comes to mind) or not historians at all (eg. Wells). The fact that no real scholars of the period in question - regardless of their faith or lack thereof - give their theories any credence whatsoever should give these people a reason to reconsider.
But no, they plough ahead with their ridiculous historical fantasies and conspiracy theories as if anyone with a clue took them seriously. I've heard it sells a lot of books to the pig-ignorant, maybe there's something in that.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I remember seeing ads in the classified sections of magazines (Harpers, The Nation) back in the '70s, inviting you to write to them for evidence that Jesus was a fictional character invented by Josephus (or something like that). I don't think it was new even then.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
If Jesus isn't the person recorded on the Gospels then he might as well have never existed. So for me, at least, it makes no difference if an unbeliever says Christ never existed, for if we can show that such a person existed by itself that proves nothing of whom we believe him to be. So, let the unbelievers, or at least some of them, cling on to their foolish claims.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I also have doubts about the reasoning "We'll only believe that person X existed if we have a person Y that knew him directly and reported on him".
How do we know that person Y really existed, that he didn't make the report up, or that the report wasn't made up by someone else?
Yes, the requirement for contemporary evidence is too strong for ancient history. For example, I think there are no accounts of Hannibal at the time. See also Boudicca.
Historians have to work with fragmentary evidence in ancient history compared with later periods. So the mythers are able to argue that there are no Roman records of Jesus and so on; true, but then there are no Roman records for tons of stuff.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And a lot of Old Testament history turns out to not be true under serious investigation, and that the Testamonium Flavianum is very probably an interpolation, possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea.
There's two references in Josephus though. The second is uncontroversial.
And with the first, while scholars generally concur that this was edited by later Christians, the 1970 find of an Arabic source that quotes this phrase in Josephus in a seemingly pre-interpolated form is good evidence that the only change made was to amend the original phrase "Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah" to read "Jesus was the Messiah". This is backed up by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah".
It's very hard to argue against these passages if you're a Myther. Most fudge the issue as best they can, or deny the evidence.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So it's rational to say the son of God never existed but not to say a man called Jesus existed?
'X never existed,' is not an intuitive way of expressing what you think if you think, 'Y existed and X is a false description of Y.'
Non-existence claims produce all kinds of philosophical muddles except in the clearest and most unambiguous cases.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And a lot of Old Testament history turns out to not be true under serious investigation, and that the Testamonium Flavianum is very probably an interpolation, possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea.
There's two references in Josephus though. The second is uncontroversial.
And with the first, while scholars generally concur that this was edited by later Christians, the 1970 find of an Arabic source that quotes this phrase in Josephus in a seemingly pre-interpolated form is good evidence that the only change made was to amend the original phrase "Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah" to read "Jesus was the Messiah". This is backed up by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah".
It's very hard to argue against these passages if you're a Myther. Most fudge the issue as best they can, or deny the evidence.
Same with Jesus' brother James - have you seen the wriggles which the mythers get into to deny that 'brother of the Lord' means the brother of the Lord?
I suppose if you are a root and branch myther, you might argue that not only was Jesus invented, but so was his family, and his brother, leader of the church in Jerusalem, and executed later, also described in Josephus. Wow, what powers of invention!
Somebody said to me that maybe the forgers inserted the James passage in Josephus, so that 1800 years later Jesus mythicism could be refuted (irony alert).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Someone mentioned Tim O'Neill upthread. This is his blog, with a very good review of the Myth and its development. He appears very well-read and provides a very good analysis and refutation of it.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, Tim is well-known in myther circles, as he brings to his critique of them a background in academic history, and a forensic ability to discern non sequiturs, non-evidenced claims, and just plain rubbish.
He is also an atheist, which tends to dispel arguments that critics of mythicism are all covert Christian apologists. Tim also understands historical method, which many mythers don't seem to.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I was impressed by Tim O'Neill's answers too. I'll have a look at his blog.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
