Addressing Dogsgod and the mythic Jesus Myth

[Oberon]

This thread is intended primarily to address Dogsgod’s claim that Jesus was purely myth. However, obviously anyone should feel free to respond/comment/debate/etc. I want to make it clear that it is not about arguing that we can’t know much about Jesus, or that Jesus wasn’t the son of god, or any of that. Rather, it is simply about refuting Dogsgod’s claims concerning Jesus as complete myth. I intend to begin this by doing a few things. First, as I have already written a longish post on the basis for historical Jesus research, I will simply provide a link to it: Groundwork in Historical Jesus Research. Arguments against that thread can be made here or there (I don’t care).

Second, I will allow Dogsgod to provide his own scholarship and arguments, rather than try to reproduce them and be accused of manipulating his arguments.

Finally, I have listed below a number of errors (ranging from understandable to basic) that Dogsgod has made concerning this subject. I do this because I intend to show that Dogsgod doesn’t really have the requisite knowledge to support his argument. Of course, the fact that virtually every scholar in any field even related to historical Jesus research (regardless of religious background) argues that Jesus was a historical person ought to be enough to make one think that perhaps there is a reason all the people who have done the most research come to this conclusion. Nonetheless, I think it is important to demonstrate just how much research Dogsgod has done.

After going over these errors, I will await Dogsgod’s response (or anyone elses). However, I ask that all those wishing to argue against the historical Jesus read the thread in the link I provided above, so that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Thanks.

 

[Oberon]

It seems best to begin with a quote which shows that Dogsgod, when he lacks evidence, is simply willing to make things up:

There is division by scholars on this because it can be interpreted either way. The division is caused by those that insist it be interpreted one way over the other.

This is a reference to how “James, the brother of the Lord” is interpreted in scholarship. Dogsgod claimed that their was a “division” of scholarship, but simply made this up. There is no such division, as it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus.

Still waiting for evidence that anyone actually read the gospels in the first century. We hear all about how fast Christianity grew yet this evidence draws a blank.

The evidence only draws a blank when you aren’t acquainted with the scholarship. First, the very fact they were copied so widely indicates they had to have been read, as very few texts survived from this period, particularly not so well attested as are the Gospels.
As for early attestation that the gospels were read, we have:

I Clement (c. 95-6): Clement cites both the Old Testament and New (Matthew and Luke) using phrases like he graphe legei. He also cites other traditions concerning Jesus, indicating the existence of traditions that are lost to us, but which existed in the first century (more evidence of oral traditions).

Ignatius of Antioch (died in the early second century, active in the first): Not only does Ignatius show an awareness of Paul, he also cites Jesus traditions, some of which are from Matthew and John. He also may have known Luke (see Smyrn iii 1-2).

The Didache (either late first century or early 2nd): The didache quotes from Matthew, as well as other traditions.

Papias (active in 1st and 2nd century): speaks of three out of the four gospels, not to mention oral traditions concerning Jesus.

Epistle of Barnabas (probably early 2nd century, possibly earlier): the author was acquainted with the gospel of Matthew.

Polycarp of Smyrna (active 1st and early 2nd century): Has about 100 quotations from the NT.

Shepard of Hermas (either late 1st or early 2nd century): shows an awareness of John and at least one of the synoptics


In other words, there is plenty of evidence from other texts, in addition to the widespread copying of NT manuscripts (and we actually possess 2nd century pieces of the gospel texts), that the gospels were used widely from the beginning.

Part of the mission, are you kidding? The scene described in Acts 1,14 is of two groups, one of men, and one of women & children, they prayed together. Jesus' sibling are with their mummy in every scene where ever they are mentioned in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Acts.

First, this is blatantly wrong because of the birth narratives. Second, the groups are not divided as neatly as described in Acts. This error could have been prevented by simply checking the text carefully. First a number of specific followers are mentioned, then the women, then Mary, who is distinguished from the rest of the women, then the brothers of Jesus. If Dogsgod had ever studied the sociology of 1st century Jewish Palestine, he would know that families stuck together long beyond childhood. There is no mention of "children." Rather, the reference is to a group of believers gathered together, including some named, and some unnamed women, and Mary Jesus' mother, and his brothers.

He does not say that James is Jesus' brother, he states that James is the Lord's brother, or brother in/of the Lord. Had he stated that James was Jesus' brother I would agree with you that he states that, but he doesn't. You accept the Catholic traditional view that this is a reference to a literal brother of Jesus but in actuality there is no basis for it.

Along the same lines of Jesus’ brother, this refers to Paul’s description of James as Jesus’ brother (which pretty much demolishes Dogsgod’s theory that Paul only conceived of a spiritual Jesus). First, James is not referred to as the brother “in/of the Lord,” only the brother of the lord, in they typical syntactic formula in Greek to indicate familial relationships. Second, the traditional Catholic view is that Jesus didn’t HAVE any brothers, because Mary was a perpetual virgin.

He's never referred to as Jesus' brother in the epistles. The Josephus reference is a later Christian tampering.

Again, in order to establish that Paul never believed in a earthly Jesus, Dogsgod denies that 1. James is ever referred to as the brother of Jesus and 2. that the Josephus reference is a Christian tampering. Except that James IS referred to as Jesus brother, and virtually every scholar believes that the reference to James as Jesus’ brother in Josephus is genuine because it shows NO signs of Christian redaction (after all, Christians never referred to Jesus as “the one called the Christ”) because to them he WAS Christ.

Where do you get the notion that he was initiated by Peter? Paul states that he went to Jerusalem where he got "acquainted" with Peter. It sounds like they shared a few brewsky.

This quote was in response to my assertion that Paul, when he spent fifteen days with Peter. Now, reading a translation, it might be possible to get this impression. But Paul specifically uses the verb historai which is the verbal form of the noun histore/history. It means to “inquire into” in a significant way. He spent fifteen days “inquiring significantly” with Peter. It is hardly as if they were “sharing a brewsky.”

The fact that most believe is of little consequence. Most scholars are believing Christians with few exceptions. Robert M. Price and Albert Schweitzer are the only two Christians I can name that admit Jesus is a mythical character.

There are several problems with this post. The first is that Albert Schweitzer never said that Jesus was a mythical character. The second is that there are many expert historians who aren't christian and who nonetheless acknowledge that Jesus was a historical person. And finally, most is a good argument, when it comes to the opinions of the people who have studied the issues the most.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash. It was a method of taking lines from scripture and arranging them in such a way as to tell a new story that reflect the new times. Practically every line making up the gospels can be found in the OT.

Here again we have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the gospels and of midrash. Dogsgod obviously hasn't read enough midrash with which to compare, nor any requisite scholarship on the composition of the gospels. Mark used oral traditions to compose his gospel (in fact, scholars have pointed to various parts of mark's narrative which were composed before mark, probably in an oral form). Q likewise is a record of oral traditions, which either remained in oral form until used by Matthew and Luke, or was recorded before them. In any case the fact the Jesus tradition was at first circulated orally and that the gospel authors (as well as Paul) were aware of these traditions and wrote them down is not doubted by any one who works in the field.

Acts is a work of second century myth making which conflicts with Paul's writings in an attempt to smooth over the conflicts between Paul and other apostles of his day.

Here again we have evidence for a basic lack of familiarity with relevant issues. Acts and Luke were written by the same author, as two volumes of the same work. This is a very basic part of NT research, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with NT scholarship should know this. Acts was written in roughly the same time as Luke, probably in the 80s, but certainly in the first century.

Josephus

Reference to Jesus as brother of James

Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.

This is interesting, because it is one of the few direct citations from a primary source that dogsgod uses, and it shows either an inability to understand them or that dogsgod simply doesn't read them carefully enough, or again a lack of relevent knowledge (how title, names, nicknames, etc were used to differentiate between people in ancient times). The Jesus' here are clearly different, one being "Jesus being called Christ" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus."

There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"

...

"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one?

This error is similar to the above, in that it displays an inability to capably access the texts, only here the mistake is more understandable because it results from an inability to read Greek. The Jesus idea is not paramount in the text. He is used only as an identifier for James (i.e. to distinguish this James from other James's).

The following is allegory, borrowing from written traditions rather than an oral tradition, and not a record of actual events.

2 Kings 1:
8 They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist."
The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."



This implicit reference identifies John the Baptist as Elijah, but this is not obvious to the reader, for there is nothing in the passage that draws attention to the fact that this line is a paraphrase of 2 Kings 1:8, but nevertheless the identification of John the Baptist as Elijah is of critical importance to the storyline in Mark and comes into play later in the narrative. This is the first indication we have that the author of Mark is using both implicit and explicit references to the scriptures, and that elements of the narrative are built around the Hebrew scriptures.

To be fair, it is always possible that dogsgod was only posting the above to show that the comparison between John the Baptist and Elijah is a reference to scriptures, and not that John the Baptist was invented by Mark. But in this case, what is the point? We know that John the Baptist was real, because he is independently attested to by Josephus (apart from John's gospel). So Mark isn't just making things up, nor he he depending entirely on scripture.

Epistle to the Hebrews 8.4 If he [Jesus] had lived on earth he would not have been a priest.

Here again is a basic in ability to read the text, only again it is understandable because it results from a lack of knowledge of greek. The condition in Hebrews is a PRESENT contrary to fact (also called unreal) condition, and therefore should be translated "if Jesus were here now, he would not be a priest."

There was no calenders, people kept track of history by events taking place when so and so ruled or governed.

This is a small mistake, but it reveals such an utter lack of knowledge concerning the culture in discussion that it is worth mentioning. Of course they had calendars.

Philo was not writing a religious text when he wrote of Pilate.

Actually, this tract (although less theological than others) is still filled with theology throughout.

Yes by his own admission, Papias preferred hearsay to anything written.

This is important, because one of dogsgod's claims is that the gospels are clearly distinguishable from ancient history. Yet here we have a statement which shows a complete lack of understanding of the methods utilized by ancient historians, who ALL used, and usually preferred, oral accounts.

Bang on, and not only that but it would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the authors of Luke and Matthew had they known their copies would become part of a canon with gMark for the world to see their plagiarism revealed. They copied gMark and they copied from a common sayings source.

This reveals the same problem as above: a lack of understanding concerning the nature of ancient historical texts. Plagiarism was common, and would not only have been no issue, it would have been expected. The use of the word as a criticism of Luke and Matthew is an anachronism.

Eyewitnesses? Really? Tradition is not to be confused with bio.

Here is Dogsgod not only using words he doesn’t know what they mean (which happens to us all) but more importantly he is absolutely wrong. Bioi were full of oral traditions. In fact, given the high rate of illiteracy in the ancient world, historians DEPENDED on them.

These are a representative sample of the serious types of errors which indicate a lack of an relevent knowledge with which to judge the usefullness of various internet sources. For this reason, I will again ask for citations from actual scholarship (i.e. written by historians of that period) which dogsgod has read and which back up his view that Jesus is pure myth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a reference to how “James, the brother of the Lord” is interpreted in scholarship. Dogsgod claimed that their was a “division” of scholarship, but simply made this up. There is no such division, as it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus.

This is a very, very bad start.

 

[Copernicus]

Finally, I have listed below a number of errors (ranging from understandable to basic) that Dogsgod has made concerning this subject. I do this because I intend to show that Dogsgod doesn’t really have the requisite knowledge to support his argument. Of course, the fact that virtually every scholar in any field even related to historical Jesus research (regardless of religious background) argues that Jesus was a historical person ought to be enough to make one think that perhaps there is a reason all the people who have done the most research come to this conclusion. Nonetheless, I think it is important to demonstrate just how much research Dogsgod has done.

I am interested in the topic and will read the link. However, I get the uncomfortable feeling at the outset that your argument will be based purely on appeal to authority. I hope that that is not the case. Most published historians have been Christians with an inherent bias to believe in the historicity of Christ, and there is considerable social pressure against those who would examine the idea from a position of skepticism. I am a lot more comfortable with relying on the preponderance of scholarly opinion for other historical subjects, but, on matters of religion, I think that one needs to look more closely at the force of the arguments than the number of scholars defending those arguments.

 

[Oberon]

I am interested in the topic and will read the link. However, I get the uncomfortable feeling at the outset that your argument will be based purely on appeal to authority. I hope that that is not the case. Most published historians have been Christians with an inherent bias to believe in the historicity of Christ, and there is considerable social pressure against those who would examine the idea from a position of skepticism. I am a lot more comfortable with relying on the preponderance of scholarly opinion for other historical subjects, but, on matters of religion, I think that one needs to look more closely at the force of the arguments than the number of scholars defending those arguments.

There has been critical scholarship by scholars from all different religions backgrounds going back well over a century. It was scholars who first wondered if Jesus ever actually existed. Today, there are plenty of agnostics, lapsed christians, Jews, etc, who write scholarship on the historical Jesus. I am not a christian, and yet somehow that is my specialty as well. There is an ENORMOUS volume of scholarship on the subject. The range of opinion (from we can know very little to most of the gospels are historically accurate) is very broad, yet the one thing all agree on is that Jesus was a first century Jew who preached, had disciples, and was crucified.

 

[Oberon]

This is a very, very bad start.

Really? You know of a "division" in historical Jesus scholarship where James is not thought of as an actual relative of Jesus? I can only think of a single scholar who has recently questioned the Josephus reference to James, let alone scholars who question whether James was related to Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a reference to how “James, the brother of the Lord” is interpreted in scholarship. Dogsgod claimed that their was a “division” of scholarship, but simply made this up. There is no such division, as it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus

This is a very, very bad start.

Really? You know of a "division" in historical Jesus scholarship where James is not thought of as an actual relative of Jesus? I can only think of a single scholar who has recently questioned the Josephus reference to James, let alone scholars who question whether James was related to Jesus.

You are a fine polemicist, from which I can only infer that the above reflects uncharacteristic sloppiness or dishonest.

Dogsgod speaks of differing interpretations of "James, the brother of the Lord."

You respond that "it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus." Even if that were true it does not contradict Dogsgod assertion, since much of the differing interpretation centered around the nature of the relationship. You moved the goalpost - a cheap and slimy maneuver. You again shift it when you move from scholarship to recent scholarship.

You have much to offer a debate on historicity. So far you've done the debate a disservice ...

 

[Oberon]

You are a fine polemicist, from which I can only infer that the above reflects uncharacteristic sloppiness or dishonest.

Dogsgod speaks of differing interpretations of "James, the brother of the Lord."

You respond that "it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus." Even if that were true it does not contradict Dogsgod assertion, since much of the differing interpretation centered around the nature of the relationship. You moved the goalpost - a cheap and slimy maneuver. You again shift it when you move from scholarship to recent scholarship.

You have much to offer a debate on historicity. So far you've done the debate a disservice ...

That isn't what dogsgod stated. He specifically referred to "a division in scholarship over this line in Paul" and then couldn't come up with a single scholar to back him up, and was stuck with citing Origen (which also didn't back him up). He makes up things to support his argument when he can't find a webpage.


Dogsgod equated James with the "brethren" metaphor in Paul. He specifically denied that James was actual brother or relative (as he asserts that Paul's Jesus was purely spiritual). There is no "division in scholarship" about this.

 

[ChristineES]

Even if it was proved that Jesus was a myth, we would have to remember that all myths have some basis in fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dogsgod equated James with the "brethren" metaphor in Paul. He specifically denied that James was actual brother or relative (as he asserts that Paul's Jesus was purely spiritual). There is no "division in scholarship" about this.

My point stands - and you seem intent on reinforcing it.

Moving on: your assertion that "[t]here is no such division, as it is well known in scholarship James was actually related to Jesus" is interesting in its own right - especially since you seem intent on conflating two very different claims. So permit me two somewhat different questions:

1. What is the relationship between James and Jesus?
2. How does this come to be "well known?"

 

[Oberon]

My point stands - and you seem intent on reinforcing it.

Your point doesn't stand. Dogsgod made up this division. Even if it did exist, he had zero evidence for it. My quote was to point out that along with not knowing anything about the subject, he simply makes things up.

1. What is the relationship between James and Jesus?
2. How does this come to be "well known?"

Other than the mythicists, I have yet to come across a scholar who denies that James and Jesus were related by blood. The vast majority take it for granted that they were actual brothers, but some catholics argue that there is no word in aramaic to distinguish brothers from cousins, and claim that the various mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters are actually references to cousins. However, even a catholic like Meier denies that this has any basis in the evidence.

As for how it came to be well known, it is attested to in multiple sources: Josephus, Paul, and the gospels. Other than the precious few who attempt to deny that Jesus ever existed (few of which are scholars at all, and only one has degrees in the right field) the only people I have heard deny that James was an actual brother are catholics who do so on the basis of Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[logician]

The "bandwagon theory" is proof of nothing except extreme arrogance.

 

[Oberon]

The "bandwagon theory" is proof of nothing except extreme arrogance.

It isn't a "bandwagon theory." Had you actually read any scholarship, you would know that the issue of the historicity of our sources for Jesus has been and currently is debated by people who have devoted years of study, and that Jesus as a historical figure is well established through an enormous amount of work. That's hardly a "bandwagon."

What is arrogant is someone who hasn't done the research, who has relied on a couple of websites and "The Jesus Mysteries" by a guy with a bachelors in Psychology to discount a century of scholarship and hundreds of thousands of pages from journals, monographs, etc devoted to the topic by calling it a "bandwagon theory."

 

[dogsgod]

Your point doesn't stand. Dogsgod made up this division. Even if it did exist, he had zero evidence for it. My quote was to point out that along with not knowing anything about the subject, he simply makes things up.






Other than the mythicists, I have yet to come across a scholar who denies that James and Jesus were related by blood.

According to the gospels Jesus had a brother named James. I'm not aware of how this can be denied, it's quite straight forward.

The vast majority take it for granted that they were actual brothers, but some catholics argue that there is no word in aramaic to distinguish brothers from cousins, and claim that the various mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters are actually references to cousins. However, even a catholic like Meier denies that this has any basis in the evidence.

Within the gospel of Mark we read that Jesus had a brother named James when Jesus disowns his family. We never read of any mention again. The same as in Matthew. Luke/Acts acknowledges that Jesus had siblings but never so much as names any of them.

So the questions remain:

What was the relationship between James and Jesus?

And how does it come to be "well known"?

As for how it came to be well known, it is attested to in multiple sources: Josephus, Paul, and the gospels. Other than the precious few who attempt to deny that Jesus ever existed (few of which are scholars at all, and only one has degrees in the right field) the only people I have heard deny that James was an actual brother are catholics who do so on the basis of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Paul's reference is left to interpretation. Josephus in this regard is under dispute.

 

[dogsgod]

According to the gospels and Acts there was no relationship between James and Jesus other than by blood.

That leaves the reference by Paul which is left up to interpretation. The Josephus reference has been debated to no end.

What is 'well known'?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Other than the mythicists, I have yet to come across a scholar who denies that James and Jesus were related by blood. The vast majority take it for granted that they were actual brothers, but some catholics argue that there is no word in aramaic to distinguish brothers from cousins, and claim that the various mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters are actually references to cousins. However, even a catholic like Meier denies that this has any basis in the evidence.

As for how it came to be well known, it is attested to in multiple sources: Josephus, Paul, and the gospels. Other than the precious few who attempt to deny that Jesus ever existed (few of which are scholars at all, and only one has degrees in the right field) the only people I have heard deny that James was an actual brother are catholics who do so on the basis of Mary's perpetual virginity.

As you know, I reject the mythicist claim. I've also read a good deal of the relevant material. Frankly, I had expected better of you. I'll leave you two to your debate ...

 

[Oberon]

According to the gospels Jesus had a brother named James. I'm not aware of how this can be denied, it's quite straight forward.

I'm not denying it.

Within the gospel of Mark we read that Jesus had a brother named James when Jesus disowns his family. We never read of any mention again. The same as in Matthew. Luke/Acts acknowledges that Jesus had siblings but never so much as names any of them.

The family of Jesus clearly didn't form part of his mission during his life. However, as Paul, Luke, and Josephus attest, James at least formed a part of the mission later. Acts does mention Jesus' family, although the names are not given. However, as you yourself have stated that Luke used Mark (who mentions James as Jesus' brother) Luke knew full well that James WAS Jesus' brother. The fact that he did not make this explicity is simply because he didn't need to. The reason for mentioning kin or place of origin was to differentiate people with the same name. By the time of Luke/Acts, Luke's audience was clearly familiar with James. Hence no need for the differentiation.

So the questions remain:

What was the relationship between James and Jesus?

It doesn't remain. Paul knew James and stated he was Jesus' brother (i.e. an eyewitness account). Jospephus also confirms this, as does Mark.
And how does it come to be "well known"?

Paul's reference is left to interpretation.

For you maybe. Not to those who have studied greek or to those who are familiar with how people were differentiated. You lack the knowledge to interpret the syntactical formula Paul uses, as well as the familiarity with relevant scholarship.

Josephus in this regard is under dispute.

Not really. There are virtually NO scholars who dispute this passage in Josephus, for many reasons.

1. Jesus is not referred to in any typical christian way. He is referred to as "the one being called/called christ." No christian would have said that, as they all called Jesus either the christ or just christ.
2. Jesus is a minor figure used to differentiate a minor figure (james). The high priest is the focus of the story.
3. Neither the relevant line nor the passage displays any sign of christology or any evidence of christian tampering. There in no reason to believe that it has been altered by christians, and if it had been, it would hardly resemble what it does.

 

[Oberon]

As you know, I reject the mythicist claim. I've also read a good deal of the relevant material. Frankly, I had expected better of you. I'll leave you two to your debate ...

Ditto. My point was simply that he cited a division which didn't exist, and that he had no knowledge of. That you would support his statement which is clearly drawn out of thin air is interesting, particularly as you are not unfamiliar with this field by any means.

 

[Oberon]

According to the gospels and Acts there was no relationship between James and Jesus other than by blood.

That is my point. James was Jesus' brother.

That leaves the reference by Paul which is left up to interpretation.

By you. Every scholar of greek, on the other hand, is aware that Paul uses a typical syntactic formula to identify James as the brother of Jesus to differentiate him from other "James's"

The Josephus reference has been debated to no end.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge in this area. The longer reference to Jesus by Josephus still has a minority which posit that the whole thing is an interpolation. The majority thinks that most of it is genuine, but has been altered by Christians, and a few have argued that all of it is genuine.

On the other hand, there are less than a handful of scholars (I know of only one) who argue that the "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ" is a christian addition. Virtually every scholar from relevant fields believes that this is genuinely Joesphus, because it lacks all christian fingerprints.

What is 'well known'?

All the hundreds or even thousands of scholars in this and related fields (excepting one or two) believe this.