Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, I am told, that rules out very few people.

Told by whom? Are you aware of what are textual, manuscript, epigraphic, etc., evidence for virtually every name known to us from antiquity consists of?

As I understand it Paul and Josephus both wrote of Jesus at least three decades after his alleged death, that's not contemporaneous.

"We had a brilliant linguist named Gordon Messing in our outfit, he had gone to Harvard, where he got a Ph.D. in linguistics, he spoke seven or eight languages, and read twenty. It used to be jokingly said, and it was almost true, that Gordon Messing's idea of fun was to translate Flemish into Sanskrit, and vice versa."

That's from a 1967 interview by J. N. Hess of S. J. Spingarn of my grandfather's participation in a WWII intelligence group. Decades later another author (son of a friend of my grandfather) wrote My Father the Spy which also attests to certain WWII activities of my grandfather. Neither of these accounts were written by those who were contemporaries of my grandfather, and neither were written within 20 years of the event described (one was written some ~50 years after these events and after my grandfather was dead). There is a difference between contemporaneous composition and contemporaries.

Paul was a contemporary of Jesus as was Josephus (and likely the author of Mark). In all probability, none of the above knew Jesus, but Paul knew Jesus' brother and we have good reason to believe Josephus had personal knowledge of Jesus' brother. Had Paul written a decade earlier or a decade later it wouldn't really matter. People who were alive and witnesses to things that happened during WWII wrote (or passed on) accounts over 3 decades after the end of the war. They were still contemporary. Likewise, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and virtually all those we might identify as ancient historians or as having composed accounts of ancient history wrote decades after the events in question. Perhaps the foremost biographer of all antiquity, Diogenes Laërtius, is a nebulous figure whose birth and death we are only able to guess at, who wrote about persons who died centuries before he was born, and whose writings survive in a handful of medieval copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. In fact, for most authors from antiquity we have only manuscripts that date ~1,000 years after the authors died that we know contain errors but that we are unable to access the extent of.

 

[Sapiens]

None of which matters, the facts stand. Two contemporaneous cross-references are required (likely along with other criteria) and two contemporaneous cross-references do not exist. Pretty simple.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, I am told, that rules out very few people.

As I understand it Paul and Josephus both wrote of Jesus at least three decades after his alleged death, that's not contemporaneous.

It would be very nice if we had something written about Jesus during the time he was alive. But I don't think that is an absolute requirement in determining an individuals historicity.

 

[outhouse]

Paul was Jesus' contemporary and knew Jesus' brother James. .

I still think this is another James, and rhetorically applied to said apostle.

Paul and his use of rhetoric, has give me enough doubt.

 

[Sapiens]

If you can't prove that someone even existed how can you talk about that maybe-person having a brother? It's a complete flight of fancy.

 

[fantome profane]

If you can't prove that someone even existed how can you talk about that maybe-person having a brother? It's a complete flight of fancy.

History is not about proving something in the absolute sense, it is about the determining what most probably happened. And yes, the fact that multiple sources mention Jesus brother does add to the probability that Jesus historically existed. Is it "proof"?, no. But it does add to the probability.

 

[Bunyip]

History is not about proving something in the absolute sense, it is about the determining what most probably happened. And yes, the fact that multiple sources mention Jesus brother does add to the probability that Jesus historically existed. Is it "proof"?, no. But it does add to the probability.

No, history is not about determining what most probably happened - probabilities in this field are not even calculable. History is about recording and preserving stories. Anyone who believes that you can perform meaningful probability calculations is dreaming.
One can never know if that which appears to us to be most probable is what actually occured, so historicity is essentially speculative - it can never be proven or disproven, and the relative probabilities are drawn from hunches, assumptions and inferences - not at any point actual probability calculations.

You say that it 'adds to the probability', but of course the probability is not in fact calculable. How probable it is that Jesus really existed is not something that anybody can show a calculation for - it is just a hopeful guess, not a probability that can be or has been calculated.

 

[Sapiens]

But again, none of the sources are (correct me if I'm wrong) actually contemporaneous. Can you say, "ex post facto invention?"

 

[outhouse]

But again, none of the sources are (correct me if I'm wrong) actually contemporaneous. Can you say, "ex post facto invention?"

here is a major aspect your missing that is far more important while dealing with historicity.


We have evidence. maybe not the best evidence but we have a mountain of evidence that needs to factually be explained away.


All evidence points to a martyred Galilean who caused trouble at Passover and was martyred in front of almost half a million people who developed a massive amount of mythology surrounding Passover.

 

[Sapiens]

If it was such a big fuss why was it not documented at the time?

 

[outhouse]

If you can't prove that someone even existed how can you talk about that maybe-person having a brother? It's a complete flight of fancy.

There is little doubt in the vast majority of those who are actually educated in this subject, that the Galilean lived and died.


The factual evidence we do have, has not been EVER been explained with a replacement hypothesis that makes sense. And its not for the lack of trying.


Every single argument for lack of historicity, was effectively refutes a hundred years ago.


Had this been a mythological account, we should be able to trace it back to its original source, and now why it was created. Front, back, sideways we would see it coming and going. We don't in this case.

What we do see is multiple communities that all have different beliefs all based on a martyred Galilean.

The early movement had many against it, and not one source claims he did not exist from any part of that time period or after.

 

[steeltoes]

The early movement had many against it, and not one source claims he did not exist from any part of that time period or after.

Once again, here it is:


"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters...are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." The True Doctrine of Celsus

We don't have much denial because there were no survivors by the time the gospels surfaced in the last half of the second century. Besides that, any writings of that nature would not have been preserved, we have Celsus only because his were preserved through the writings of Origen.

 

[Sapiens]

There is little doubt in the vast majority of those who are actually educated in this subject, that the Galilean lived and died.

This is an unsupported claim, care to share an original source?

The factual evidence we do have, has not been EVER been explained with a replacement hypothesis that makes sense. And its not for the lack of trying.

Care to share the factual evidence?

Every single argument for lack of historicity, was effectively refutes a hundred years ago.

Nothing has been learned in a hundred years? I find that hard to credit.

Had this been a mythological account, we should be able to trace it back to its original source, and now why it was created. Front, back, sideways we would see it coming and going. We don't in this case.

We can trace it back to mythological sources (or so I've been told), Thesus, Isis, Herakles, other dieing and rising gods, etc.

What we do see is multiple communities that all have different beliefs all based on a martyred Galilean.

A good ad agency perhaps?

The early movement had many against it, and not one source claims he did not exist from any part of that time period or after.

So?

Up until recently it was physically dangerous to even advance such a theory.

Seriously, in all the years I've been asking this question I've never gotten a well defined answer ... as in, here it is, written at the time, clear as day.

 

[steeltoes]

If it was such a big fuss why was it not documented at the time?

This is it. We have a story set in a time and place, like any fiction.

 

[Sapiens]

This is it. We have a story set in a time and place, like any fiction.

That really is the point. Look as books like Flashman or Sharpe's Rifles ... meticulous history, all the places, all the people, all the events ... except the protagonist and his direct experiences are all fiction.

 

[outhouse]

This is an unsupported claim, care to share an original source?
.

It is supported.

It is said to be fact he was crucified and baptized, but thanks for playing.

wiki historical jesus

Care to share the factual evidence?

Paul, and the gospels and Josephus are factual evidence.

Nothing has been learned in a hundred years? I find that hard to credit.

Your better then that. I expect more out of you

You know I never said that. I stated quite clearly every replacement hypothesis has been effectively refuted, and mythicist have only regurgitated these past arguments out of ignorance.


There seems to be a level of education involved where people drop the boloney.

And a few oddball scholars out of thousands do not represent any real statistic here.

We can trace it back to mythological sources (or so I've been told), Thesus, Isis, Herakles, other dieing and rising gods, etc

No, simply not true.

Things that are reflected in all religions are not evidence a Galilean Jesus was created with no historical core.

Its absurd.

There is no tie any sect that followed and expanded on this previous mythology.

Mythology evolves, you know this.


The evolution we see starts at Passover where a trouble maker was placed on a cross and martyred afterwards.

[QUOTE.
A good ad agency perhaps?] [/QUOTE]

Perhaps Romans placed a Galilean on a cross, no stretch of he imagination there at all.

So?

Well that just happens to be a big SO


No one would create a myth 10 years prior, where people could say hey! I was at that Passover and no such thing happened.

Instead we see many communities all saying this happened. And not a peep from anyone saying different.

The reason is people knew it happened.

 

[outhouse]

That really is the point. .

Then provide a replacement hypothesis.

Why did Paul wrote what he did?


When did this fiction circulate?


Why have Romans creating deity out of what amounts to a oppressed Jew they all looked down on?

 

[Sapiens]

It is not my task to disprove the unproven.

All I need do is ask for the proof and note that it is not forthcoming, yea ... it may even not be extant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Two contemporaneous cross-references are required

By whom? Not historians. Not even the only individual with a doctorate in ancient history who believes we have good reason to doubt that Jesus was a historical person. Where are you getting this criterion from?>

two contemporaneous cross-references do not exist. Pretty simple.

So is requiring photographic evidence. We can make up requirements that are simple quite easily. Historiography, however, isn't the practice of arbitrary "rules" applied to idealized forms of evidence.

We have no references to any historical persons in antiquity that meet your requirements under some interpretations and under others we have enough to confirm that various mythical creatures, gods, and heroes were historical. What field of science are you in?

 

[fantome profane]

But again, none of the sources are (correct me if I'm wrong) actually contemporaneous. Can you say, "ex post facto invention?"

If we are talking about James, then you are wrong. We do have contemporaneous references to "James the Just, the brother of Jesus, the one they called Messiah".

If it was such a big fuss why was it not documented at the time?

Keep in mind that most of Jesus's followers would have been illiterate and not able to document anything if they wanted to.

Also most of his original followers would have no interest in documenting anything for posterity because they didn't think there was going to be a "posterity". They though the "kingdom of God" was coming in a matter of days or weeks. But when this didn't happen, and when churches were being formed in places outside Jerusalem and outside Palestine then they saw the need for documentation of some kind.

And lastly there is good reason to think that the earliest documents we have are not the earliest documents that were made.