Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:06 am
But Tacitus & Josephus corroborated in a different ways with each other about the existence of Jesus/Christ.
  • There is no evidence that Tacitus & Josephus corroborated.

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:06 am And I do not see why there are problems with the authenticity of this secondary evidence.
  • We have good evidence that Antiquities 18.3.3 was wholy doctored or interpolated.
  • Antiquities 20.9.1 / 200 is tenuous, if not also doctored or interpolated (as is likely)
  • Perhaps Annals 15.44 was also doctored? Perhaps by the same people who doctored Antiquties?

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:06 am The fact is the corroboration from Tacitus and Josephus ... who certainly had no interest to attest to someone who did not exist.
  • But others did and do have an interest in their 'attestation', don't they?

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:06 am Tacitus and Josephus described events and mentioned persons happening/living before their time and most of them are not contested, even if sometimes uncorroborated. Why should it different in that case?
  • It shouldn't be any different. It isn't.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:36 am Christianity was triggered by a series of events, with the ones about Jesus, inserted in that chain of events.
  • Christianity was 'triggered' by narratives about a series of events: by belief in those narratives

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:36 am Knowing about him is not very important, because Jesus was not important in his lifetime.
  • Those two statements are extremely contradictory.

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:36 am
Knowing about him is not very important ... [b]ut knowing about the events he got involved in, either directly or indirectly is what matters most.
  • Those two statements are extremely contradictory.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by neilgodfrey »

nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am
But you do not find comments such as
"The Mother of All Assumptions is that the gospels contain some historical nuggets or are gateways to discovering historical nuggets."
... to be "negative hyperbole" worthy of comment?
That comment about The Mother of All Assumptions is NOT a mythicist argument. It is about fundamental historical method. I am referring to the sort of assumption that dominates biblical studies and that is contrary to normative historical method in other fields of history.
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 amIn any event, I apologize if you were offended.
This was not directed to me, but I must respond. I despise such hypocritical sarcastic apologies -- what are really apologies for their target being upset, not for themselves being rude.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by neilgodfrey »

nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:58 pm
Evidence of what? How can anything "serve as evidence" if it lacks independent corroboration and if we cannot know its original form?
Evidence of a Jerusalem sect and complex tensions with that sect. Evidence of proto-Christian diaspora communities in existence within roughly a quarter of a century of the purported crucifixion.
You are drawing upon far more than simply the letters of Paul to produce such scenarios.
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 amWhat I have not seen is the existence of anything approaching a 1st century C.E. mythicist polemic by anti-Christians who could claim familiarity with Jerusalem.
So? What's your point? We can only work with the evidence we have.
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 am Now, one possibility is that the epistles and Acts are clever and sometimes torturous fabrications -- that there simply is no 'there' there: no communities, no struggle with the Jerusalem folks, nothing. And it is possible that these fabrications reflect a conspiracy by Paul and the author of Acts. (Although why Paul would have fabricated all the nonsense about his conversion is beyond me. It would have been far easier had he simply claimed to have been a trusted apostle.)
This is all nonsense. Why on earth would relying upon the evidence we have lead anyone to think that the authors of the documents were involved in some sort of conspiracy or that an author would have lied about his conversion?

You seem to be out to target some stance that you assume I hold but simply don't.
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 am It is also possible to view these works as self-serving apologetics with an historical core: that there was, indeed, such a sect, and that there was, indeed, a sect leader who may or may not have claimed to be the messiah. This would have been far from remarkable in the waning days of the 2nd Temple Period.
You seem to have no idea how to work with evidence as a historical researcher. You seem to think the only way to read documents is to interpret them as fitting your preconceived views of what happened.
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 amThe evidence is inconclusive. You, we, are left to choose between an ahistoric, convoluted fabrication, or an embellished, self-serving mission to promote a Jerusalem sect leader in the diaspora. Again, I suggest that the latter represents the inference to best explanation.
I suggest your either-or is a false dichotomy. You seem incapable of thinking in anything other than black or white.

nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 am I'm not a historian (or, for that matter, a Christian) so you have me at a disadvantage. I was unaware that "normative standards of historical research" required one to summarily dismiss anything that was not contemporaneous. Could you recommend a text on historiography that addresses this guideline?
Start with the origins of modern history and the essays of Ranke. Most books written for budding post-graduate historians about historical methods. M.I. Finley is an ancient historian who takes to task his peers who love to reconstruct myth rather than genuine history; N.P. Lemche is a biblical (OT) historian who has addressed the question at some length. These authors and many others I have discussed numerous times on my blog. Take your pick of any of them.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:14 am Is your argument that although 1st century CE Christians believed in a recently executed historical Jesus, we cannot tell if this Jesus really existed or not ?

Or is your argument that we cannot tell whether 1st century CE Christians believed in a historical Jesus or not ?
I don't argue for either. I leave behind any questions that arise directly or indirectly from the assumption that the fundamental plots of the gospel narratives or any of their narrative details are derived from real historical events. Such an assumption I find unsupportable given the absence of independent corroboration.

I think some biblical scholars work on the same principle: they study the Jesus in the gospels as a literary and theological figure. The question of historicity or otherwise simply does not arise. It is not a question that the sources enable us to explore.

Further, your question assumes the existence of a certain group ("Christians") at a certain time (1st century CE) that I suggest are derived from the assumption of a historical background to the gospel narratives. What are "Christians" in your question? How are they defined? What is the evidence for them and for existing in the 1st century CE? I am not denying that you have reasonable answers to such questions. Just seeking my own clarification in turn.

(Even if we are relying upon Paul's letters, I am not sure that even those support the assumption that Paul and his followers belonged to a separate "Christian" group distinct from "Judaism".)

The best I think we can say is that we have narratives about an executed Jesus (whether "recent" from the time of writing we cannot say with any confidence) and the historian needs to work with these, seeking to understand the nature of these narratives and explanations for their origins and the functions and influences they served. As for what certain people at certain times "believed", that sounds to me like a very thorny question that will require a reliance upon more than the narratives themselves.

The letters of Paul are another set of documents that give rise to their own questions. The important thing, to me, is to study these questions without introducing traditional assumptions.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by neilgodfrey »

Edward M. wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:24 am Hi Neil,

As mentioned before on this forum, do you think Matthew 28:13-15 (if written in 1st CE) could be a anctual response against the Jews of 1st CE who believed Jesus body was taken by his disciples after being crucified and thus evidence of historicity?

13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
"Matthew" is writing a story. It's a story. It could also be an actual response to Jews of the first century etc, but we would need to have independent evidence to support that interpretation. I don't know how we can say that such a view (that it is an actual real-life response etc) is part of a historical record.

It is dangerous to use the Matthew narrative as evidence that Jews at the time were saying that Jesus' body had been stolen. In fact, I don't see how it can be justified by valid historical methods. Of itself, the story reads just like the ending of a Hans Christian Anderson tale that assures children that the shoes or some trinket can be found "to this very day" beneath a certain tree in a certain forest. It adds a teasing touch of verisimilitude.

(As a commenter wrote on my blog just a few hours ago, Matthew also seems to be teasing readers with a call for them to go and speak to witnesses of all the dead who rose out of their graves at the time Jesus died.)

It is just as reasonable to explain Matthew's story of the bribery of soldiers as an attempt to tidy up a loose end in Mark's narrative. And a far more parsimonious explanation that postulating all the variables that need to be introduced to support historicity.

Besides, what if the gospel were not even written till the mid second century? Would there be such a concern for explaining a way a historical event a century earlier? We simply don't know when Matthew was written.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
nili
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by nili »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:15 pm
nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 amIn any event, I apologize if you were offended.
This was not directed to me, but I must respond. I despise such hypocritical sarcastic apologies -- what are really apologies for their target being upset, not for themselves being rude.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:30 pm You seem incapable of thinking in anything other than black or white.
Got it ...
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Kapyong »

nili wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:40 am And it is possible that these fabrications reflect a conspiracy by Paul and the author of Acts. (Although why Paul would have fabricated all the nonsense about his conversion is beyond me. It would have been far easier had he simply claimed to have been a trusted apostle.)
Ah, the old 'conspiracy theory' trick, eh ?

We know the early Christians could not possibly have been in on a conspiracy !
Therefore Jesus existed !
What nonsense.

nili -
no-one claimed a conspiracy,
no-one claimed Paul fabricated his conversion.
Please pay attention.

Meanwhile - the book of Acts is extremely suspect history.

Kapyong
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by robert j »

Kapyong wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:50 pm no-one claimed Paul fabricated his conversion.
No-one is an awful lot of people.

Fabricated? I don't want to quibble over semantics, but it seems quite possible that Paul used the LXX to construct his conversion story.

Paul
Galatians chapter 1
and 1 Corinthians chapter 15
Numbers
Chapter 12 in the LXX (NETS)
and a bit of Jeremiah chapter 1
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism … (Gal 1:13)

For I delivered to you first of all … (1 Cor 15:3)
... I was persecuting the assembly of God … (Gal 1:13)

… I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:9)
And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses … (Num 12:1)

"And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moses?” And the anger of the Lord’s wrath was against them ... (Num 12:8-9)
And last of all, as the ektroma he appeared also to me … because I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:8-9)

[Paul was like the ektroma because, like Miriam, he was ignorant and he sinned]
… Mariam was leprous like snow … And Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. Do not let her be like unto death, like an ektroma coming out of a mother’s womb… " (Num 12:9-12)
But when God, the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles. (Gal 1:15-16)And a word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I had consecrated you; a prophet to nations I had made you.”(Jeremiah 1:4-5).

[And like Jeremiah, Paul's calling, his appointment, came later. Jeremiah was a youth (1:6) when the Lord said to him --- ]

"Behold, today I have appointed you over nations ... " (Jeremiah 1:10)
… the gospel having been preached by me, is not according to man … but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

But when God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me ... (Gal 1:15-16)
… And the Lord … said to them, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him." (Num 12:5-6)
But when God … having called me by His grace … (Gal 1:15)

… I went away into Arabia and returned again … (Gal 1:17)


[Paul separated himself in the land of Moses, and returned cleansed]
And Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, I beg you, heal her!” And the Lord said to Moses … Let her be separated for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she shall enter.” And Mariam was kept apart outside the camp … until Mariam was cleansed (ἐκαθαρίσθη).
(Num 12:13-15)

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Kapyong »

Gday robert j :)
Kapyong wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:50 pm no-one claimed Paul fabricated his conversion.
robert j wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:19 pm No-one is an awful lot of people.

Fabricated? I don't want to quibble over semantics, but it seems quite possible that Paul used the LXX to construct his conversion story.
Fair point - I should have said no-one here has claimed such a fabrication. Sorry.

Actually - you have caught me in another un-tested assumption - that Paul's conversion story is an genuine account of a person's experience. I had never heard that doubted, or considered it.

Thanks for pointing to the use of ἔκτρωμα in the LXX, that is new to me and I think quite relevant.

I had a poke around and found Philo cites Numbers 12:12 :
Loeb, Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis I, wrote: “Travailing” is a name strictly appropriate to folly, because the foolish mind, being enamoured of things out of its reach, is evermore in travail pangs. This is so when it is enamoured of money, when of glory, when of pleasure, when of anything else. But, though in travail, it never brings to the birth, for the soul of the worthless man has not by nature the power to bring forth any offspring. What it seems to produce turn out to be wretched abortions and miscarriages, devouring half of its flesh, an evil tantamount to the death of the soul. Accordingly Aaron, the sacred word, begs of Moses, the beloved of God, to heal the change in Miriam, that her soul may not be in travail with evils; and so he says “Let her not become as one dead, as an abortion coming forth from the womb of a mother; consuming half of her flesh” (Num. xii. 12).
Greek on request. Luckily most Greek variations of ἔκτρωμα are rendered as 'abortion'.

Kapyong
Post Reply