What Do Mythicists Want?

[spin]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

Speaking on behalf of all mythicists, we want what Socrates wanted - an apology from every Christian who ever said that Jesus was an historical person, and a nice free place to live and free meals for the rest of our lives.

Mythicists might be Free Rats, but that doesn't make them Free Loaders.

[outhouse]

Of the two options, this seems closer to the truth. The state of the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is consistently and egregiously overstated. .

By whom is the question.

Throwing out apologetic scholars with a limit of say Ben Witherington being way over the line, I don't think your comment holds up entirely.

On the other side of the coin, I do see non apologetic scholars that over attribute what can be reasonable attributed.

It is the total of evidence including mythology that proves much of their case. In your case hard evidence is weak and overstated. But the fact these people wrote using mythology, competing against other mythology of the era, and by following what these people placed as of value, nothing explains the mythology like a martyred man at Passover that had decades for his mythology to steep into what it is today. We do have clear examples of this mythology being layered with time.

This leads to the harsh rhetoric against those who doubt that Jesus existed

Because so far, every attempt explain the evidence does not hold up as well as a martyred man at Passover.

They ask for the harsh rhetoric they receive in poor work trying to make piece of the puzzle fit, much like literalist trying to make Genesis fly historically .

I think the mythicists have succeeded in establishing the main bone of contention that they have

To me they have strengthened the case for the characters historicity because so far their replacement hypothesis are at best laughable.

Carrier takes more leap of faith in his replacement hypothesis then the typical credible scholar.




I view this "mythicist" minority view as healthy for the overall big picture, as I agree with you that many things are over attributed.

[outhouse]

to Blood,

tradition becomes history, and history becomes dogma

I can agree with that, but where do you put Jesus? (at least a human earthly Jesus exists in the gospels and Paul's epistles). He would be either totally fictional OR (according to my research) a real but not divine or exceptional Jew who initiated (unintentionally) Christianity.
Cordially, Bernard

The whole legend wreaks of early Hellenist dealing with a major problem of creating divinity with a legend they had no control over.


We see them stumbling time and time again making a peasant Galilean Jew as divine as the Emperor in any way they could. NO easy task but they did pull it off.

[Peter Kirby]

Because so far, every attempt explain the evidence does not hold up as well as a martyred man at Passover.

That may or may not be. It's part of the dispute in the case under discussion. Even if so, it doesn't lead to the characterization of those who doubt the historicity of Jesus as "insane." Such is the word of Rudolf Bultmann, is it not? Frequently quoted too. There has been some improvement in the state of rhetoric used, especially among those who have studied the issues deeply, but not without a concomitant rise in the unjustified venom as more people are exposed to the controversy for the first time and weigh in prematurely.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

It is not insane to say there was a real Jesus any more than it is insane to say there was a Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard or even a Mohamed. What is insane is claiming a real Jesus was intrinsically different from them.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Spin,

I do not think it is a matter of freeloading but a matter of getting a just reward.

As i recall, Socrates' point was that the city-state rewards winning Olympic athletes with a free home and free meals. Socrates exposed the gap between what was believed to be known and what was actually known. By getting the people of Athens to think about the quantity and quality of their knowledge in a new way, Socrates argued that he was doing more good for them than any Olympic winning athlete. Ergo, he deserved the prize that the Olympic winners got.

Similarly, mythicists have gotten people to think about epistemology and authority: how much do we actually know versus what authorities claim is known. They should be given the greatest rewards society has to offer for this. I am afraid however that society has not progressed much on some levels since 400 B.C.E. Mythicists should still expect ridicule, anger, unjust verdicts and hemlock for their contributions to the public good.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

Speaking on behalf of all mythicists, we want what Socrates wanted - an apology from every Christian who ever said that Jesus was an historical person, and a nice free place to live and free meals for the rest of our lives.

Mythicists might be Free Rats, but that doesn't make them Free Loaders.

[Gilgamesh]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

Let me suggest that the question of the historical existence of Jesus leads to a false path to nowhere because Jesus doesn't matter. I'll say again: the Jesus we know doesn't matter. What we know of Jesus, believer and non-believer alike, we know from gospels--there is no useful information (pace Josephus) contained outside the gospels. Gospels are the products of communities/assemblies/congregations (all of which words became the word for "churches") of believers. Perhaps 20 congregations produced documents which may fit the literary form of gospels as conceived today. In every case in which we have enough information to analyze the formation of gospels, we find they are stitched together from pre-existing materials. These pre-existing materials--pronouncement stories, conflict stories, passion narratives, etc.--are the earliest products of believing communities.

When Jews felt it was safe to admit they had known Jesus, a few of like mind got together in private residences and reminisced. They created oral traditions which were shared with other house-churches. As time passed and the promised Rapture had not come, and when a critical mass had developed, some were written down lest these reminiscences be lost. From the plethora of oral and written stories, the first of the canonical gospel, that attributed to Mark, was stitched together. Similar stories can be told of other gospels. John is the big surprise.

The point is, to know Jesus requires knowledge of the formation of what became, three centuries after the Crucifixion, the New Testament. But, the formation of the NT is a product of the emergence of the Christian Churches from the chaos of the Crucifixion. So one must go further back. If one cares to know Jesus, one must study the emergence of the Christian Churches from Judaism, and then to understand the role of these Churches in the development of the NT. It is not simple, but it is a great deal of fun.

[outhouse]

Gospels are the products of communities/assemblies/congregations (all of which words became the word for "churches") of believers. Perhaps 20 congregations produced documents which may fit the literary form of gospels as conceived today.

Where does this magical 20 come from? I will call that absurd guessing at best, outright fabrication at worst.

we find they are stitched together from pre-existing materials.

True. They are all compilations.

.--are the earliest products of believing communities.

Possibly with John, not the other 3.

Very educated pater familias could have been responsible for the rest.


Not only that from this early period when these were compiled, its very doubtful you even had communities. Many so called communities could have been the product of these gospels.

When Jews felt it was safe to admit they had known Jesus, a few of like mind got together in private residences and reminisced.

Which is not where these gospels came from. If they were, they would have been more accurate.


These text were compiled and collected for decades in Hellenistic communities, and written for Jesus very enemies in the Disapora by Gentiles and Proselytes.


How many people forget he was a failed messiah in Judaism

As time passed and the promised Rapture had not come, and when a critical mass had developed, some were written down lest these reminiscences be lost.

That is not how many viewed it. They still thought the end was coming soon. '

critical mass? no

Nothing was going to be lost. We are talking about a movement that was slowly becoming more and more popular in the Disapora. With its popularity came diversity. Within this diversity some had to place forth their own interpretation of the movement and compiled text important to them, and discarded others not as popular.

. John is the big surprise.

Not really.

Wide diversity ruled the day. A more magical and theological version doesn't surprise me at all. A Johannine community that had text that evolved for quite a while that had a much different direction due to geographic location should not surprise anyone.

The point is, to know Jesus requires knowledge of the formation of what became, three centuries after the Crucifixion, the New Testament

I don't agree.

The only information that I find credible is what is claimed as being created the first 120 years, after that you have guesses worst then ours.

the formation of the NT is a product of the emergence of the Christian Churches from the chaos of the Crucifixion.

What chaos?

A Jew was placed on a cross for fighting the crooked temple like a common thief. There was no Chaos, not enough to be recorded by anyone for decades after.

The NT is a retelling of a Jewish man, by a culture outside of Judaism who found importance in the mythology surrounding the mans legends. A martyred man at Passover fighting for the common oppressed peasants due to a corrupt temple ran by Hellenist who worked hand in hand with the Romans. A retelling in which the Hellenist made the Jews out to be the bad guys making the Romans more innocent so that the new movement could survive in the Diaspora.

one must study the emergence of the Christian Churches from Judaism

Wrong dead wrong.

The early pater familias were formed in the Diaspora by gentiles and proselytes and they had little to do with Judaism and more to do with Hellenism.

The mythology did not grow in Judaism, that's why the movement didn't flourish in Galilee


One needs to study first century Judaism and its wide diversity and the socioeconomic divide between Galilean Judaism and the corrupt Hellenistic Judaism if one wants to understand early components of the movement.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

Let me suggest that the question of the historical existence of Jesus leads to a false path to nowhere because Jesus doesn't matter. I'll say again: the Jesus we know doesn't matter. What we know of Jesus, believer and non-believer alike, we know from gospels--there is no useful information (pace Josephus) contained outside the gospels. Gospels are the products of communities/assemblies/congregations (all of which words became the word for "churches") of believers. Perhaps 20 congregations produced documents which may fit the literary form of gospels as conceived today. In every case in which we have enough information to analyze the formation of gospels, we find they are stitched together from pre-existing materials. These pre-existing materials--pronouncement stories, conflict stories, passion narratives, etc.--are the earliest products of believing communities.

When Jews felt it was safe to admit they had known Jesus, a few of like mind got together in private residences and reminisced. They created oral traditions which were shared with other house-churches. As time passed and the promised Rapture had not come, and when a critical mass had developed, some were written down lest these reminiscences be lost. From the plethora of oral and written stories, the first of the canonical gospel, that attributed to Mark, was stitched together. Similar stories can be told of other gospels. John is the big surprise.

The point is, to know Jesus requires knowledge of the formation of what became, three centuries after the Crucifixion, the New Testament. But, the formation of the NT is a product of the emergence of the Christian Churches from the chaos of the Crucifixion. So one must go further back. If one cares to know Jesus, one must study the emergence of the Christian Churches from Judaism, and then to understand the role of these Churches in the development of the NT. It is not simple, but it is a great deal of fun.

Oops! I almost tripped over the big lacunas.

So Jesus is dead. Slam, bam, crucify me ma'am. End of gospels concerning a real Jesus. Safe to admit having known him? How long would it have taken to admit being taken in by a fraud whose teachings were not proven by his resurrection AS HE SAID? I would guess around a week if he was a late resurrecter. They got together and cussed him out for lying to them and they all got back to their day jobs instead of the cushy life on alms of an apostle and retire to write the gospels.

So they got together and invented a resurrection. And then they waited for some whack job on shrooms to write Revelation and then for that crackpot in 19th c. US to invent the rapture myth by taking a line here and a line there and ...

[Eric]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

I can speak only for myself obviously. It doesn't matter to me if he existed or not. What does matter to me stems not from existence but he did exist therefore he was the son of god and all the harm that has come and continues to come from his self-appointed priests and preachers. It is a bit like the Septuagint, Yes there is a Babylonian inscription mentioning a King Omri a name also found in the Septuagint ... therefore the Red Sea parted.

So he existed and that does not make him the son of god or any kind of authority on anything. And you cannot pick and choose what is attributed to him and you cannot explain away the parts you do not like just because they disagree with the parts that do because reversing the arguments is equally legitimate.

How do you come to the conclusion that one cannot pick or choose? Is it because it makes it easier for you to defend your faith in no existence of a man?

So yes there might by admonitions to peace but there is also the explicit intent to set family members at each others' throats.

Jealousy, greed, intolerance, lack of communication and other key factors cause disruption between family members. Where is your proof that God causes these conflicts and other horrific events you mention earlier when in your own words there is no God of existence? If you say its religion or those who believe in God that causes them, then we are back to the same reasons i.e. greed, intolerance, jealousy etc. In conclusion, if you share no belief yet come here to attack, are you not doing the very thing that you blame religious people for doing, causing disruption?

The teachings barely rises above what a father might give a young child and no more original than that. There is no moral superiority involved in following this advice to children. None of it is suitable to adult life. People cannot "be as little children" when they have their own children to feed. If you give all to the poor what do your kids eat? It is all total BS for the real world. Without throwing the god part nothing he teaches is worth more than a cursory scan.

And it gets worse. The parables cannot be understood until after he returns from the grave. Without the god part no one understands them so all them them remain gibberish. Or make up your own meaning. There is no real meaning.

Healing the sick? A common preacher trick in his time. Of course he hated amputees like all the rest of the preachers. So are all of the "miracles" properly recognized as street magic in those days, god channel and revival meeting magic these days.

That is the person we are talking about. Whether or not he was real or a creation does not make a bit of difference. What does matter is discouraging people who jump from He lived to the whole son of god shtick.