( After some discussion, it has come to my attention that the original title "Christ Myth Theory is False" was not very accurate to this essay , so I changed it to better reflect the intention of this writing.)
Recently I have seen this notion being pressed that the historicity of Jesus is simply not supported. Now please understand I am paraphrasing, so if I do not cover every single aspect of this 'theory' in great detail then forgive me, as I do not want to wright a novel.
I want to look at the claims made by proponents of the Christ Myth Theory ( From here on simply CMT) and compare them to claims made by biblical scholars to see if the proponents of CMT hold up to scholarly scrutiny. The basics of the CMT are as follows:
The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Different proponents espouse slightly different versions of the Christ myth theory, but many proponents of the theory use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century:
1.that the New Testament has no historical value
2.that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century
3. that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.
Some prominent figures in support of CMT include:
Volney and Dupuis
The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney (1757–1820) and Charles-François Dupuis (1742–1809)olney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character
Strauss
In 1835, German theologian David Friedrich Strauß (1808–1874) published his extremely controversial The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined (Das Leben Jesu). While not denying that Jesus existed, he did argue that the miracles in the New Testament were mythical retellings of normal events as supernatural happenings.
Carrier
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker, and blogger. He has a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University where his thesis was on the history of science in ancient antiquity. He is a leading proponent of the Christ myth theory.
Price
American New Testament scholar and former Baptist pastor Robert McNair Price was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus and who argue that the Christian image of Christ is a theological construct into which traces of Jesus of Nazareth have been woven.e was also a member of the Jesus Project. Price believes that Christianity is a historicized synthesis of mainly Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek mythologies.
Now that I have given credit where it is do, and shown that this is not just some collection of average Joes offering claims on no authority at all . I will move onto addressing specific points made by proponents of CMT, I.E the three points I have posted above.
1. the New Testament has no historical value.
New Testament
While the authorship of some of the Pauline epistles is largely undisputed, there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographswritten more than a generation after the events they describe.Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained.
The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics
Anthropological and sociological modelling
the Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts.
2. there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century.
There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.
Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgeryf the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.
3. Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots
Here we see a claim that in fact has some ;legitimacy:
Early Christianity and Early Rabbinical Judaism were significantly influenced by Hellenistic religion and Hellenistic philosophy. Christianity in particular inherited many features of Greco-Roman paganism in its structure, its terminology, its cult and its theology. Titles such as Pontifex Maximus and Sol Invictus were taken directly from Roman religion. The influence of Neoplatonism on Christian theology is significant, visible for example in Augustine of Hippo's identification of God as summum bonum and of evil as privatio boni. Striking parallels between the New Testament account of Jesus and classical gods or demigods such as Bacchus, Bellerophon or Perseus were recognized by the Church Fathers and termed "demonic imitation" by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.
Now that I have covered those points as best I could. I will now cite the opinions of Biblical scholars on CMT:
Historicity refers to the question of whether alleged past persons and events are genuinely historical, or merely mythical. The study of whether the Jesus mentioned in the Christian New Testament was a real person is covered in the article Historicity of Jesus.
In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate
Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theoryEhrman also notes that these views would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department:
These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists" and "demonstrably false", and that "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".
Writing in 1977, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant concluded 'modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. IIn support of this, he quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ-myth theory has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'.
At the same time he also quoted Otto Betz's 1968 opinion that in recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.'But such claims of abundant evidence often fail to stand up to scrutiny.
R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had created the Jesus Project, which included both mythicists and historicists to investigate the historicity of Jesus, wrote that there were problems with the adherents to the Christ myth theory. They were asking to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the theory, which Hoffmann felt signalled a lack of necessary skepticism. He noted that most members of the project did not reach the mythicist conclusion.
I must end it there. The sources I used are listed below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Christianity#Pagan_roots
From Jesus to Constantine. A Early History of Christianity- Professor Bart D. Erham. Professor of New Testament studies at UNC Chapel Hill.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Jeff must have really pissed you off...
No not at all, Jeff's criticism was towards my writing style. He made some valid criticisms on this point. But he did give me the idea for writing this, although Jeff himself never clearly endorsed the 'theory' but cited an historian who IS a main proponent for CMT. And this is where I got the Idea.
Ah, well, it just seemed you found the 'theory' untenable and unpleasant. I am fairly sure that the concept isn't as cut and dry as both sides make it out to be. It is nearly impossible to actually know with certainty whether or not a person existed when we don't have any actual text from said person, we wind up relying solely on second-hand accounts or oral stories about said person, and that really isn't enough to establish the existence of the person with a great deal of confidence. That is part of the reason most of the leaders use words like probable and likely, though there isn't really a quantifiable measurement for such in literary criticism. The majority of scholars, and I do mean the majority, believe that Jesus a probably or likely did exist, and the fantastic stories and tales were added to the account of his life later. Meanwhile, if one knows that a lot of false information was added to a document, they cannot truly be confident that any single piece of information contained within is true without vigorous external evidence to support it.
Likewise, though many think it most likely that Jesus existed, they don't really agree on how much of the literature or which parts are actually accurate history. This means the entire story remains extremely suspect on its face.
In the end, it doesn't truly matter if people made a ton of bullshit up about an existing figure named Jesus, or if he never actually existed at all; because in the end we cannot be confident that any single fact in the literature concerning him is even true. If I told you a story about Bob, and in it he is a twenty foot tall scaly hermaphrodite with the good looks of a T-rex, and then you met him and precisely none of it was true; then did the Bob I told you about actually exist?
This is the problem with Jesus, even if a person with the name existed, the deity described in the bible most certainly didn't. There is not a single fact about him we can point at as absolutely true beyond all shadow of a doubt, and that makes the character as fictional as Lord Voldemort regardless of whether there was a hobo wandering around at the time with the same name.
Hey Travis,
A disagreement...
"In the end, it doesn't truly matter if people made a ton of bullshit up about an existing figure named Jesus, or if he never actually existed at all; because in the end we cannot be confident that any single fact in the literature concerning him is even true."
I think it does matter. Or mayber it could matter. There are a lot of folks who are convinced that the modern bible is an actual history book. Because of this, they think it appropriate to insist its content be inserted into what should, IMO, remain secular. If there is the potential to discern what is bullshit and what isn't, it could make countering this insistence a tad bit easier.
"There are a lot of folks who are convinced that the modern bible is an actual history book."
True, but the majority of those people are not convinced because of historical support, they are believers who would still take it all as true whether it there is any reason to or not.
"Because of this, they think it appropriate to insist its content be inserted into what should, IMO, remain secular."
I think literary criticism concerning the bible is suffering from a lot of that now.
"If there is the potential to discern what is bullshit and what isn't, it could make countering this insistence a tad bit easier."
I doubt it, the mere suggestion that the character is fictional is almost enough to get you blacklisted, and until we change that honest criticism will go untreated by use of a simple origin fallacy.
Perhaps you're correct and I'm just too hopeful. ;-)
Travis:
"Ah, well, it just seemed you found the 'theory' untenable and unpleasant. "
Then this is something I should work on, because while I do not find CMT very convincing personally, I actually hold the opinion myself that Jesus was probably a myth, but I know that I do not possess any authority in this matter so I always try to bring the conversation to what the experts are saying, because my opinion , just does not carry as much weight. And if anyone is going to have a productive discussion then academic authority must be respected. And not on some blind faith to authority ,but a recognition that the experts have spent years of rigorous study in an environment of constant criticism and scrutiny, and this is what I am defending. (In my conversation with Jeff)
I do want to state that I even made a point on my post to mentioned the figures in support of CMT to show that it has some scholarly support, I am not trying to be passively aggressive towards Jeff in any way, So if anything my title was a poor choice and is better viewed as an examination of CMT.
"It is nearly impossible to actually know with certainty whether or not a person existed when we don't have any actual text from said person, we wind up relying solely on second-hand accounts or oral stories about said person, "
True, but this is also true for many figures in history, Socrates for one. So if we are comfortable throwing Jesus into mythology on these grounds then many a figure from antiquity would be also mythological.
Now I am not advocating for the complete historicity of the bible, I have spent too much time studying it to make such a ridiculous claim. But that at does not mean that the bible has none at all.
@AlphaLogica
"True, but this is also true for many figures in history, Socrates for one. So if we are comfortable throwing Jesus into mythology on these grounds then many a figure from antiquity would be also mythological."
Yes, but isn't there a gigantic difference here?
Historical figures like Socrates is not claimed to have risen from the dead, walked on water, etc. As soon as this supposedly historic figure is said to have had supernatural powers, supernatural origins, etc, the claims need so much more evidence to be taken seriously.
@Pragmatic
"Historical figures like Socrates is not claimed to have risen from the dead, walked on water, etc. "
That Jesus may have actually existed is not the same as Jesus may have actually performed miracles. I fully reject any such claims of this nature.
"That Jesus may have actually existed is not the same as Jesus may have actually performed miracles. I fully reject any such claims of this nature."
I understand the distinction.
But my point was that, if for example Socrates had been claimed to have been born by falling to Earth in a ball of fire and to have his intellect blessed by Athena, the unsatisfactory historical evidence of his actual existence could just as well have thrown Socrates into mythology instead of history.
EDIT:
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the supernatural claims linked to the individual adds a level of implausibility. At least when there is such lack of separate corroborating sources.
"I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the supernatural claims linked to the individual adds a level of implausibility. At least when there is such lack of separate corroborating sources>
I agree completely. So in order to provide some evidence for the historical Jesus, (Not the 'jesus' of Christian dogma) Here is a short video concerning this very issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw
"Then this is something I should work on, because while I do not find CMT very convincing personally, I actually hold the opinion myself that Jesus was probably a myth, but I know that I do not possess any authority in this matter so I always try to bring the conversation to what the experts are saying, because my opinion , just does not carry as much weight."
It depends, what matters is what evidence can be brought to bear that supports the mythicist position, not whether or not some experts like it. Seems to me the position that Christ was real is more of a traditional presupposition than a supported one. Not only that, but if you cannot point to even a single fact about said individual that can be established beyond reasonable doubt, then that is basically identical to being wholly fictitious.
"And if anyone is going to have a productive discussion then academic authority must be respected."
Perhaps, when the subject in question is beyond ones ability or understanding, but otherwise it isn't too important. The support for an argument is far more important than the origin of it, as the converse is a blatant origin fallacy. It isn't so much that authority shouldn't be considered, but that it certainly isn't the primary factor that should be considered. It is more of a way to establish that the source of a particular piece of evidence isn't a whole-cloth creation.
"And not on some blind faith to authority ,but a recognition that the experts have spent years of rigorous study in an environment of constant criticism and scrutiny, and this is what I am defending. (In my conversation with Jeff)"
Experts are a good source for arguments and/or evidence, however, if someone can logically refute them; then the authority of the opposition matters much less than the substance of their arguments. The authority of a source does not make the material either beyond or above spirited criticism, even by people who do not hold doctorates in the field.
"I do want to state that I even made a point on my post to mentioned the figures in support of CMT to show that it has some scholarly support, I am not trying to be passively aggressive towards Jeff in any way, So if anything my title was a poor choice and is better viewed as an examination of CMT."
If what you said in the topic is correct, and the CMT is enough to get someone blacklisted from the field, then that shows a very real bias against the position. If they cannot provide good, rock-solid evidence against said position(like your examples), then it is held more on belief than empiricism.
"True, but this is also true for many figures in history, Socrates for one."
So? Even if Socrates never existed it would not impact whether or not the dialogue associated with him was true. His existence isn't particularly up for debate, not because we can universally assume he existed, but more because his existence is irrelevant in the face of the philosophical gold mine in the stories about him. Whereas, with Jesus, his existence is extremely relevant to the stories being told about him.
"So if we are comfortable throwing Jesus into mythology on these grounds then many a figure from antiquity would be also mythological."
I am fine with that. I am not entirely sure why people are so attached to the idea that this would be a problem.
"Now I am not advocating for the complete historicity of the bible, I have spent too much time studying it to make such a ridiculous claim. But that at does not mean that the bible has none at all. "
I wouldn't argue for the historicity of spider-man comics, despite the fact that it has many a real reference and occurs in a real place, but using the same logic as Dr Ehrman, spider-man existed.
"I wouldn't argue for the historicity of spider-man comics, despite the fact that it has many a real reference and occurs in a real place, but using the same logic as Dr Ehrman, spider-man existed."
Yeah that is a ridiculous statement, a complete misrepresentation of Erhman's work.
"It depends, what matters is what evidence can be brought to bear that supports the mythicist position, not whether or not some experts like it. "
Agreed, and the mythisicts cannot provide anything of value as far as evidence is concerned. This so far has really been no different than talking to any conspiracy advocate. Little to no real evidence of value, cries of persecution, horrible misrepresentation of facts to support baseless conclusions. And a refusal to apply their criticism evenly to their own position.
"Experts are a good source for arguments and/or evidence, however, if someone can logically refute them; then the authority of the opposition matters much less than the substance of their arguments. "
True, but only if they can sufficiently prove that what they are saying is true, logical consistency can still be absolutely wrong if the information they posses is wrong. Experts, and more importantly, consensus are necessary in a discussion so only the good information is presented and all the misleading information is removed.
"The authority of a source does not make the material either beyond or above spirited criticism, even by people who do not hold doctorates in the field. "
No it does, as more often than not people argue from a position of ignorance. This is why there is such a thing as peer review,. and if you want an effective discussion then you need to play by the rules, otherwise no one is really saying anything of value, and its opinion v.s opinion on matters of fact. You would not allow a young earth creationist to present logically consistent arguments against evolution,, if they are ignorant of the facts of biology. They can cite scripture as evidence and then draw logical conclusions from scripture to support their conclusion. Who would find this convincing? Yet when applied to history, well its open season and everyone's interpretation is equally valid.
"If what you said in the topic is correct, and the CMT is enough to get someone blacklisted from the field, then that shows a very real bias against the position. If they cannot provide good, rock-solid evidence against said position(like your examples), then it is held more on belief than empiricism. "
No, no more than an alternative 'doctor' can get a job in a medical hospital. If you hold a position that is counter to the overwhelming evidence in a related field, you cannot expect to be taken seriously within that field, this is not persecution, this is the gauntlet of peer review, the acid bath of critical examination.
"So if we are comfortable throwing Jesus into mythology on these grounds then many a figure from antiquity would be also mythological."
"I am fine with that. I am not entirely sure why people are so attached to the idea that this would be a problem."
Well you are the first one I met who is willing to take that all the way to its ultimate conclusion So in a way I congratulate you on your conviction.
"Yeah that is a ridiculous statement, a complete misrepresentation of Erhman's work."
From what I could see, he was basing historicity on three major factors:
A. Inclusion of real people, places, and events.
B. Extra-canonical sources.
C. Being unique enough to distinguish itself as a separate story.
A. Passes with flying colors. Story happens in New York, covers events such as the September 11th terrorist attack, and includes stories of real people like Barack Obama.
B. Passes with flying colors. There are metric tons of extra-canonical sources including synopsis, reviews, and studies.
C. Distinct powers, even if he lacks the power to raise the dead or resurrect, he does have his own special powers.
So...
"Agreed, and the mythisicts cannot provide anything of value as far as evidence is concerned."
I have seen little of value coming from the opposition either, other than the same flawed type of logic that could be used to justify the existence of any superhero in a modern comic book.
"This so far has really been no different than talking to any conspiracy advocate."
Depends, some push that conspiracy theory a LOT further than others. I wouldn't compare Zeitgeist to Carrier, because they are much different animals.
"Little to no real evidence of value, cries of persecution, horrible misrepresentation of facts to support baseless conclusions."
Neither side appears to have much evidence of value concerning this, and you admitted the position was rather persecuted in the mainstream, and it seems to me that BOTH sides are stretching some bad inductive reasoning to justify their positions.
"And a refusal to apply their criticism evenly to their own position."
Seems to me this applies to BOTH sides of this debate.
"True, but only if they can sufficiently prove that what they are saying is true, logical consistency can still be absolutely wrong if the information they posses is wrong. Experts, and more importantly, consensus are necessary in a discussion so only the good information is presented and all the misleading information is removed."
We need to be careful here, as there has been times when the consensus was wrong and it took decades for it to swing to the correct conclusion.
"You would not allow a young earth creationist to present logically consistent arguments against evolution,, if they are ignorant of the facts of biology."
I both humor and destroy them with regularity.
"They can cite scripture as evidence and then draw logical conclusions from scripture to support their conclusion."
Sounds sort of like people who believe Jesus was real.
"Who would find this convincing? Yet when applied to history, well its open season and everyone's interpretation is equally valid."
Sounds like something similar has already happened to me...
"No, no more than an alternative 'doctor' can get a job in a medical hospital."
We have rock-solid evidence that alternative medicine doesn't just not work, but have evidence that quite a bit of it can kill people. So, no, that isn't a very good analogy.
"If you hold a position that is counter to the overwhelming evidence in a related field, you cannot expect to be taken seriously within that field, this is not persecution, this is the gauntlet of peer review, the acid bath of critical examination."
If the majority in the field disagree with you, but cannot provide rock-solid evidence that your position is wrong, then they reserve the right to pretend you are a lunatic. Got it.
"Well you are the first one I met who is willing to take that all the way to its ultimate conclusion So in a way I congratulate you on your conviction. "
Um, thanks, I suppose. Meanwhile, I have to wonder, is there any rock-solid evidence that Jesus actually existed?
" is there any rock-solid evidence that Jesus actually existed?"
depends on what you mean by rock solid evidence, if you take the criteria used in the field that is History then yes, but if you mean on par with something like the support for evolution then no.
But as far as the evidence for an historical Jesus take a look at this short (26 min) video on this very topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw
My thoughts after watching the clip...
He basically says that:
- we have almost as little proof of the existence of other historical figures, like Pontius Pilate, therefore the historical Jesus should be just as historically recognized.
- Just because there is no evidence for his existence, does not mean he didn't exists.
- Then he goes to the scriptures as proof (a single unverified source).
First, I do not deny the possibility that a person existed, that myths about the supernatural Jesus were attached to.
However in my (admittedly limited) view, I find the argument for Jesus historical existence on par with "You cannot disprove that god exists, therefore he exists.".
From what I can see, his argument seems to hinge on the principal that we should start from the supposition that some figure resembling Jesus did exist, and then count every single mention(regardless of actual context) both within(Pauline Epistles and the Gospels) and external(a bevy of mentions of what Christians believed related by historians) as evidence that he did exist. The obvious and glaring flaw in this is not even the preposterous amount of circular reasoning that entails, but rather the gigantic scale of confirmation bias that this activity would result in. There is NO reason to start with a positive supposition in either direction, NO reason to count the testimonies and epistles as historical, and virtually NO reason to assume that historians relating the beliefs of early Christians are actually verifying the existence of absolutely anything but early Christians.
Given this, I would have to say that Ehrman shit the bed on this one, and that his argument for the existence of Jesus is NO better than the evidence that the resurrection actually occurred.
I have not much time today so I stick to no 2 of your claims.
I apologize in advance for any mistakes i might make here.
Richard carrier has an other completely different argument against those mentions in 2.
You should check his videos before making such claims.
Here I will stick to my own research though.
"Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus."
True, but what you missed is some fun facts that discredit their reliability completely.
Josephus and Tacitus Are both Flavian historians.
They formed part of the Falvian propaganda agenda.
They would never say anything against the flavians.
(The Flavians were 3 emperors, one followed after the other, and were also gods or sons of a god)
The Falvian family were not only Christians, they were THE Christians, The early church fathers venerated them as their main benefactors of Christianity.
TWO churches were built to 2 members of their family in Rome in the second century.
Flavia Domatilla (daughter or niece of the emperor Titus Falvius) was the very first "historical" saint.
Fun fact: Christianity in this period flourished.
Ther eis clear evidence that Domatilla donated a catacomb to the Christians in Rome during this time.
Flavius joshefus was the chief propagandist of the Flavians, he was given an apartment in the emperor own villa, adopted in the family and became knows as Flavius Josephus to this day.
+ all Flavian historians clearly declare that the Messiah(probably his second coming) is no one else but Flavius Vespasian and his dynastic family. (the Emperors)
All Flavian Historians are clearly unreliable if one assumes that Christianity is being used by the royal family as their pet religion.
In light of these fun facts your entire counter argument about 2 falls apart.
Thus no 2 still stands:
"2.that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century"
@Jeff:
"I have not much time today so I stick to no 2 of your claims."
It appears that you did not have much time to read what I wrote either. In order to be fair I cited figures of authority who are in support of CMT, This is why I put Carrier on that list, as he is the main proponent, and a historian. And the points I made are the most common elements of CMT, because those who are in support of this theory do not agree on all aspects OF the theory. So I was trying to be as fair as possible.
"In light of these fun facts your entire counter argument about 2 falls apart.
Thus no 2 still stands:"
NO, I am sorry that is a major assumption on your part, You continue to use assumptions to support conclusions. Let me address this one at a time:
"They would never say anything against the flavians."
Assumption.
"There is clear evidence that Domatilla donated a catacomb to the Christians in Rome during this time."
Yes, but that does not support your conclusions. you are just spiting out accusations and then connecting the dots to fit a picture you want to be true.
"+ all Flavian historians clearly declare that the Messiah(his second coming) is no one else but Flavius Vespasian and his dynastic family. (the Emperors)"
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Provide sources in support, I am willing to be convinced but I need more than your assertions.
Jeff: "They would never say anything against the flavians."
AlphaLogica: NO, I am sorry that is a major assumption on your part"
Maybe you are not familiar with what happened to historians who dare write any history through this time period.
Josephus describes in chilling passages that all writers were gathered and executed, all their writing was collected and destroyed.
The Flavians effectively destroyed any other contemporary history, leaving us only with the Flavian historians version of history, mostly Josephus.
They just did not want any other version of history, wonder why?
Now if you are as half inteligent as I think you are, you would know what would ahve heppened to anyone who wrote something which was not liked by the emperors?
Death and everything they would have writen(even not related writings) would be destroyed.
For a historian, to destroy all his writings is worse then death in some cases.
So yes I am strongly convinced that The Flavians historians would not say anything the Flavians would not like, at least not without sugar coating it for sure.
You can call it an assumption but it is a very likely assumption and not a major assumption as you claimed.
If you deny this very logical conclusion, then you can throw all history in the bin and claim you cannot assume anything about history and everybody is throwing major assumptions.
"There is clear evidence that Domatilla donated a catacomb to the Christians in Rome during this time."
"Yes, but that does not support your conclusions. you are just spiting out accusations and then connecting the dots to fit a picture you want to be true."
Which conclusions?
That Flavia Domatilla supported the Christians enough to give them free property?
That She was the first historically attested Saint?
You did not deny those, and avoided the subject by generalizing about my conclusion. Be more specific to avoid confusion.
My assumption is that if you are declared a saint in a religion, you most likely was part of that religion.
If you are supporting a religion financially, you at the bare minimum approve/agree of that religion theology.
This is like saying the new pope is not a christian because i never seen him praying before.
"+ all Flavian historians clearly declare that the Messiah(his second coming) is no one else but Flavius Vespasian and his dynastic family. (the Emperors)"
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Provide sources in support, I am willing to be convinced but I need more than your assertions."
Yes, baseless claims are no good, but I thought this would incite your curiosity to check it up for yourself.(the best way to learn)
It only takes 5 seconds on google for that one.
Quick google search:
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants13.html
Next time ask more nicely though, I cannot be expected to support everything I say about history, since I'm summarizing volumes of my own research(don't remember every source), if you need clarification/sources ask, I will provide them after.
(when I say historical person, it mean we know their date of birth/death and something about them which qualifies them as actual historical persons not some invented character which does not have enough details)
Now that I have more time, i will answer your points.
"1.that the New Testament has no historical value"
I still do not see the rebuttal of this point.
I do not think that no: 1 is correct either.
I would rather say:
If there is any history in the NT there is no way to distinguish what is fiction or not since it is filled with allegory and exaggerations for an agenda.
"3. that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots."
Yea i do not see how one could even contest this.
Most historians agree that it does.
Everybody knows that 2/3 of christian beliefs were created through the influence of "pagan and/or mythical roots" throughout history.
Eg:
Christmas, Easter, Confession, churches, statues, etc..
All originate from traditions of earlier religions mostly popular in Rome.
Nowhere in the gospels suggest Christmas, Easter, Confession, churches, statues etc...
(even the stoic philosophy in Rome resembles christian philosophy)
Apart from that No3 is missing also an important root.
Christianity has a Jewish root mostly.
One could say that it is the Jewish mix with Hellenistic myths.
This was nothing new at the time, it was actually very common. In those times a lot of new religions arise in this manner.
Richard carrier has an entire lecture on this alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU
"In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically"
Yes what I was pointing out is that they are looking at it with the wrong tools.
To research a historical character you need a historian
To research literature you need a literary analyst.
After the Literary analyst extracts what is actual history from a piece of literature then it is the historian job to find out what happened.
Most scholars and historians are just not qualified for identifying literature.
I will later on give links on how allegory works in literature.
Edit:
Start at 28:10
Why the Gospels Are Myth
Here he goes in detail on how the gospels were constructed. The literature method and allegory used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0
Hello Jeff =)
I feel now is a good time for us to take a moment and clarify our points as simply as possible so as to avoid.clear up any potential confusion that my have, or yet to arise. I think this will help organize our discussion in a productive manner.
So that you can see what I mean I will start. First with what I think you are saying, then I will restate what I am saying. If you could do the same, (even tell me what you think I have been saying) and address any points that you feel I have ignored or just avoided, I would appreciate it very much. Also, if I have misrepresented anything you have said then please correct me.
So. Here is what I think you are saying:
1. That Jesus never existed as an earthly figure.
2. That Paul either invented or recycled a myth that we know today as Jesus.
3. That here is not enough evidence to support the position of an historical Jesus .
4. That the Bible was written and is intended as a work of literature, pushing a theological claim.
5. That the Bible can only be truly understood AS a work of literature.
6. That Paul believes Jesus to have died and risen in a different realm, but not on Earth.
Here is what I am saying:
!. That a figure most likely existed on earth that we know as Jesus (Without the miracles or any ridiculous claims of that nature)
2. That Paul absolutely believed in a real, flesh in blood man named Jesus. Whose message he took and changed to allow for pagan converts to join his cult based on Jewish myth.
3. That Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalyptic Jew who believed the world was going to end very soon.
4. That the bible is a collection of theological claims based on some figures and a few events in history. and was never intended solely as a work of literature.
5. That there is valid evidence to support the existence of an historical Jesus.
6. That the overwhelming scholarly support for an historical Jesus outweighs the support for Jesus as a myth. And that this is sufficient enough to seriously undermine the credibility of any such claims. Not completely disprove mind you. I am still willing to be convinced that I am just plain wrong or seriously mistaken.
7. That any claims you put forward, must be backed up at all times with credible sources. On this point I cannot stress enough. This is not to say that you have never done this, but I would like you to do it every time.
AS far as anything you avoided or forgot to respond too I cannot think of anything. as far as I can tell you have done well to respond to everything I have said. So I would like to give you the opportunity to respond to this so we can move forward in our discussion.
K seems clear enough, though its going to be hard to repeat myself on some of those things and fit everything in 1 post.
It would really help a lot if you actually saw the work of Richard carrier before starting any discussions.
Just so we are on the same page and reduce the amount of work I have to do just to explain things which are clearly explained by him.
"1. That Jesus never existed as an earthly figure."
There is no reason to believe he did, I cannot know for sure but we are talking about the Jesus character in the gospels.
That character has no basis in reality, if there was a Jesus it was a completely different person.
"2. That Paul either invented or recycled a myth that we know today as Jesus."
I never claimed that. The "myth that we know today as Jesus" comes from the gospels and some major additions from the church later on in history.
About Paul either invented or recycled a myth about A Jesus:
I'm personally not sure about that, All I said, was that according to Paul, he received a message from a Jesus which does not resemble the gospel Jesus.
For all I know Paul himself could be an invented Character.
"3. That here is not enough evidence to support the position of an historical Jesus ."
Yes
"4. That the Bible was written and is intended as a work of literature, pushing a theological claim."
Hmm hard to say what was the original claim, but it was definitely intended as a work of literature.
"5. That the Bible can only be truly understood AS a work of literature."
It can be FULLY understood as a work of literature. The literal face meaning is a contradictory story.
"6. That Paul believes Jesus to have died and risen in a different realm, but not on Earth."
I do not know what Paul believed but according to the authentic letters of Paul, that seems to be the most logical interpretation.
Check Richard Carrier work about this claim.
"!. That a figure most likely existed on earth that we know as Jesus (Without the miracles or any ridiculous claims of that nature)"
To claim the existence of someone so contradictory(a peace loving Jew wondering and preaching in the middle of a war zone) you must provide so pretty good evidence for it.
BTW Judea was a war zone in this period, you had the Jews(Christians) were making a guerrilla type of warfare against the Romans, Rape, murder theft, etc.. was a normal everyday thing.
The gospel depict Judea not as a war-zone, where you had religious zealots(Christians) attacking roman patrols but peaceful, this is not realistic.
(Christians = followers of a Messiah, The messiah were militaristic, Jesus is the only messiah not militaristic but peaceful)
An other unlikelihood, the dead sea scrolls show that the messiah's were militaristic and they had mainly the objective to restore Israel to power in the world.
Yet Jesus was the only Messiah not to fulfill that role which was expected from the true messiah.
"2. That Paul absolutely believed in a real, flesh in blood man named Jesus. Whose message he took and changed to allow for pagan converts to join his cult based on Jewish myth."
3. That Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalyptic Jew who believed the world was going to end very soon.
Richard carrier explains Paul and up until now you failed to critique this point.
Maybe you still haven't watched it, when you do, we can come back to this point.
"4. That the bible is a collection of theological claims based on some figures and a few events in history. and was never intended solely as a work of literature."
We still haven't yet started debating this, or at least I haven't but once one sees that the entire gospel from start to finish is an allegory, there is really no room for any other intentions but literature.
We will discuss later the gospel of Luke and I will show you what I mean.
"5. That there is valid evidence to support the existence of an historical Jesus."
You have not presented it yet.
"6. That the overwhelming scholarly support for an historical Jesus outweighs the support for Jesus as a myth. And that this is sufficient enough to seriously undermine the credibility of any such claims. Not completely disprove mind you. I am still willing to be convinced that I am just plain wrong or seriously mistaken."
As I already stated, an argument of authority from people who are not qualified to examine literature is a flawed reasoning.
"7. That any claims you put forward, must be backed up at all times with credible sources. On this point I cannot stress enough. This is not to say that you have never done this, but I would like you to do it every time."
I could reference you a few books but that is not what you need, you need the quick access to the line that confirms my claim and that takes time.
This topic is huge, it is best that if you think I need to give a source, you just tell me.
Else I would assume you know about it and move forward.
Jeff:
"It would really help a lot if you actually saw the work of Richard carrier before starting any discussions."
Agreed, I have now watched three different lectures by Richard Carrier, all of them an hour long, and I feel I should take the time to express a few misconceptions that I held on this CMT, having learned a few things that I did not know before watching those lectures and fact checking the claims he presents:
1. That the CMT as proposed by Carrier is the exact same 'CMT' that is proposed in Zeitgeist or amateurs online.
This cannot be farther from the truth. I pretty much threw them all under the bus as if they were on equal footing when in fact they are not. So I stand corrected.
2. That there were insufficient arguments put forward against the historicity of Jesus.
Turns out I only ever had read all the BAD arguments against the historicity of Jesus and assumed that they were all echoed and modified for better presentation, but never modified with better information. On this I stand corrected. Carrier put forward good arguments with good information.
I still am looking more into Carrier and his writing, specifically Proving History, and his Pauline Interpolations. and On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. I actually look forward to reading and fact checking them all, but this will take me awhile lol I have pretty much opened a Pandora's box of information.
"I could reference you a few books but that is not what you need, you need the quick access to the line that confirms my claim and that takes time."
I have no issues with you citing whole books, if that is where you got your information then THAT is what I want to see, I want your sources so we can both have a discussion with the same information, helps to avoid confusion because as I have stated before not all information in support for CMT is created equally.
And I am glad that we each took the time to restate our points because it has already paid off, I.E:
"There is no reason to believe he did, I cannot know for sure but we are talking about the Jesus character in the gospels.
That character has no basis in reality, if there was a Jesus it was a completely different person."
On this we are in full agreement, so we can set this point aside and focus on those things in which we are not in agreement..
Although I am a little torn at the moment, I do not want to cease our discussion, for worry that I might be perceived as dodging you but considering all the new information I have in front of me that I have yet to read, most if not all of my responses towards Carrier and his claims would be complete arguments from ignorance. And that would get us nowhere.
So I am going to read all that I have listed and then get back to you if that is OK; if there are somethings in which you feel we can still discuss outside of Carriers work then I am glad to continue. But I just want to be certain that I know exactly what Carrier is saying before I attempt to respond
"So I am going to read all that I have listed and then get back to you if that is OK"
Fine by me, actually i am quite glad that you do.
I would not consider dodging at all, but instead a wise investment of time.
+ Carrier sites many sources about his claims and up until now this entire discussion was just focused on his claims.
So if you want sources he delivers a lot of them in his speeches.
Also there is a nice explanation of the Fig tree by R.G. Price since Carrier does not explain it in detail in his videos.
R.G. Price explains more in detail allegory in the gospel Mark:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm
It would also help a lot to read a summery of the writings of Josephus since the gospels are mostly based on them.
It will help us later.
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/
I will later show you how the gospel of Luck was literally shaped as a huge allegory(with multiple stories) to the military campaign of Titus Flavius(emperor) derived from Josephus version of the event.