Addressing Dogsgod and the mythic Jesus Myth

[dogsgod]

I think this has merrit. Oberon compared the odd man out in historicial studies, the one or two today whol argue well against jesus as a historical figure, to the few biologists who'd argue against evoulition. It makes sence then that any historian going against the grain today, one who does not believe jesus was a real person, would be fighting an up-hill battle, ignored and ridiculled by peers who, after dedicated their lives to the idea that jesus was real, cannot take the idea that they might be wrong and so they automatically deny the descenters research, reading only to discredit it, not to understand it.

Not to mention the serious biblical studies done early in the last century, were still largely done in christian countries, in a time when if you were not a professed christian you couldn't even hold office in most states.

Good point. I think the approach Doherty and Price take in regards to the earliest of Christian writers, namely the epistle writers, as being key to understanding the beginnings of Christianity will make inroads into scholarship, I think it inevitable. For too long the epistle writers have been viewed through a gospel lens by the mainstream, and eventually this will change. The incorrect placement of the epistle writers in the NT in that they are placed after the gospels hasn't helped matters for the reader, it's hard not to read the gospels into the epistles since the gospels are read first.

 

[Oberon]

It makes sence then that any historian going against the grain today, one who does not believe jesus was a real person, would be fighting an up-hill battle, ignored and ridiculled by peers

Only this is not the case. Doherty is ignored because he has an B.A. in classics and his book doesn't interact with any scholarship.

Price, on the other hand, who also denies Jesus lived, and is the only one who does so in this field, is invited to join seminars, has his books published, and is engaged with the community. No one buys his arguments, but he is still read, published, and still interacts with other scholars in the field. There is no ridicule, nor is he ignored.

after dedicated their lives to the idea that jesus was real

I can't speak for others, but personally it took that sort of study to realize Jesus was more than pure myth. On the other hand, the same sort of study took a former fundie like Ehrman and turned him into an agnostic.

Not to mention the serious biblical studies done early in the last century

Serious biblical scholarship began far earlier. And you have an interesting point, because it was then that the idea that Jesus was a myth HAD a place in scholarship. There were top names arguing this, even though culture was far more christian. Compare the work of Reimarus, writing in the 18th century, to an agnostic like Ehrman. Early last century, although no one was arguing for a totally mythic Jesus anymore, scholars like Wrede and Bultmann, again BIG names in the field, were far more skeptical than todays scholars.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe. But try to see it from my point of view. I have spent many years attending undergrad and graduatue classes in several fields, and I made the decision some time ago that I might as well specialize. I choose NT studies, and I am writing my dissertation on orality within the Jesus tradition. So this is a big deal to me, simply because of the time I have invested in my research. I am hoping that using orality as a tool, as it is just starting to be used in historical Jesus research and NT studies, will enable me to paint a very plausible picture of Jesus. My peers and my superiors (those who already have doctorates) with whom I engage in debate all have their own opinions on what the historical Jesus did and who he was, and I converse with many in person and read the published (and non-published) work of the rest.

Then we have people like Dogsgod and Logician who have read virtually NO scholarship in this field, or in any related field, and make certain claims.

It is only natural that, as I am passionate about the work I have dedicated years to, I would respond to such claims.

Well, we covered most of this stuff in the other thread but I do understand where you're coming from. Some here may not be as learned in a specific area as you are but it doesn't take a great deal of education to see that the evidence for the biblical Yeshua is virtually non-existent.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. The gospels we have are copies. Most likely...copies of copies etc. I think the earliest they go back is the third century. They're ripe with opinions from the writers, who I might add were pretty much anonymous, filled with claims of supposed magic and miracles and were no strangers to interpolation. The life of the biblical Yeshua does parallel, to a certain degree, other supposed mythic figures/gods/god men before him.

There could have very well been a Yeshua who was a rebel and an outspoken charismatic person of his day. All we're saying is that...there is very little information to go on. It is hard to put stock in the gospels considering they themselves contain erroneous information that either hasn't been discovered because earlier documents haven't been found or that earlier manuscripts/fragments have been found thus the bible had to be "revised"...

I personally don't mind you presenting all the scholars and their degrees because at the end of the day their just giving us their opinion. I question whether they are approaching the subject (The Historical Jesus) with a preconceived notion that he actually existed or are they the opposite. If they were the opposite such as I am then surely they could offer some evidence to show why they would now believe he existed considering we're all pulling our information from the same pool of information.

 

[Humanistheart]

Serious biblical scholarship began far earlier. And you have an interesting point, because it was then that the idea that Jesus was a myth HAD a place in scholarship. There were top names arguing this, even though culture was far more christian. Compare the work of Reimarus, writing in the 18th century, to an agnostic like Ehrman. Early last century, although no one was arguing for a totally mythic Jesus anymore, scholars like Wrede and Bultmann, again BIG names in the field, were far more skeptical than todays scholars.

You make some excellent points. I'm unsure if we're thinking the same thing, did you list reimarus as an example of the hesistancy to publically denounce jesus as I theorized people in the past would be agraid to do, or to show the differnces in the methods of analysis and thoughts of the day juxtaposed to toay?

 

[Oberon]

You make some excellent points. I'm unsure if we're thinking the same thing, did you list reimarus as an example of the hesistancy to publically denounce jesus as I theorized people in the past would be agraid to do, or to show the differnces in the methods of analysis and thoughts of the day juxtaposed to toay?

I list Reimarus as where it began. He opened the flood gates for scholarship, although his work was published after his death. Strauss was next, and his work destroyed his career. But this was all the way back in the 17th and 18th centuries. By the time the 19th century rolled around, plenty of works had been and were being published which were highly critical of the traditional christian picture of Jesus.

For example, in 1847 we have F. C. Baur's Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonische Evangelien which was highly critical of the fourth gospel as a historical source. The 19th century also was when the "Q" hypothesis was first proposed, that Matthew and Luke cannot be considered two independent witnesses, because they were both dependent on Mark and Q. And so forth.

In fact, so much critical research had been conducted on Jesus since Reimarus that already at the very beginning of the 20th century Schweitzer could write his famous history of the Quest for the Historical Jesus itself (Von Reimarus zu Wrede). And Bultmann hadn't even stepped onto the scene yet.

The point I am trying to make is that it isn't like christain dogma has dominated this field for centuries, and only now scholars are just beginning to question our sources, and looking at them critically. This happened all the way back in the 17th century, and by the 19th century it was old news. To assert that it is christian dogma keeping the virtual unanimous position of scholarship that Jesus was historical flies in the face of all the evidence. Scholarship in this field has been producing highly critical works on our sources and on christianity for hundreds of years.

 

[Dunemeister]

it doesn't take a great deal of education to see that the evidence for the biblical Yeshua is virtually non-existent.

You're right, it takes a profound lack of education to see that evidence for the biblical Jesus is virtually non-existent.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. The gospels we have are copies. Most likely...copies of copies etc. I think the earliest they go back is the third century. They're ripe with opinions from the writers, who I might add were pretty much anonymous, filled with claims of supposed magic and miracles and were no strangers to interpolation. The life of the biblical Yeshua does parallel, to a certain degree, other supposed mythic figures/gods/god men before him.

This shows what I meant in my first comment. You are factually mistaken that the earliest copies of NT material is third century. We have early second century fragments. Second, it's no surprise, and nothing against them, that all we have are copies of the NT. They were widely copied and distributed, which means that now we have a wealth of material that makes ancient historians working in other fields absolutely green with envy. Third, anonymity of authors does not tell against the document's historicity or reliability. Fourth, the "parallels" between Jesus and dying and rising gods is extremely shallow and tenuous. And it's not obvious that, if the parallels are more than surface that there is a crass copying. It may be that the gospels are taking a polemic stance toward those other religions and have creatively told the Jesus story in order to present that polemic. (I don't believe this is the case.) But it could still be the case that the Jesus story is, on the whole, true.

There could have very well been a Yeshua who was a rebel and an outspoken charismatic person of his day. All we're saying is that...there is very little information to go on. It is hard to put stock in the gospels considering they themselves contain erroneous information that either hasn't been discovered because earlier documents haven't been found or that earlier manuscripts/fragments have been found thus the bible had to be "revised"...

We have plenty of evidence to work with. Anyone even remotely familiar with the field can tell you so. And again, even if it's true that the gospels contain some errors, and if the copies show revision, it still doesn't follow that they are useless in historical reconstruction.

I personally don't mind you presenting all the scholars and their degrees because at the end of the day their just giving us their opinion.

Nonsense. You and I (and other lay people who have at best a casual interest in this) have "mere" opinions. Scholars who have devoted their lives to a topic of study and have been well received in the community who undertakes it have opinions that matter.

[quote[I question whether they are approaching the subject (The Historical Jesus) with a preconceived notion that he actually existed or are they the opposite. If they were the opposite such as I am then surely they could offer some evidence to show why they would now believe he existed considering we're all pulling our information from the same pool of information.[/quote]

If you actually read the literature, you would see that they offer arguments and appeal to evidence. Our job as readers is to critically assess (as best we may) how the author has handled it. Just as there are talented and foolish detectives, so there are talented and foolish historians. And just as foolish detectives mishandle evidence, so do foolish historians. It's our job to sift the talents from the fools.

 

[dogsgod]

Later gospels are fiction but the early ones are historical, or so say the defenders of the status quo. Such nonsense. These gospel narratives are mythologies, allegorical fictions, and not to be taken literally. What does make sense is that no one wrote about him when he supposedly lived.

 

[Oberon]

Later gospels are fiction but the early ones are historical, or so say the defenders of the status quo. Such nonsense. These gospel narratives are mythologies, allegorical fictions, and not to be taken literally. What does make sense is that no one wrote about him when he supposedly lived.

What a great contribution to the debate, and wrong on all accounts. For example, Crossan and others have put more emphasis on later gospels and less on the canonical ones. And while you are technically correct that it does make sense that no one wrote about him when he lived, your conclusions from this are horribly flawed. Jesus lived in a highly illiterate society. Very few people were written about AT ALL, let alone WHILE THEY LIVED. Jesus has several biographies shortly after his death, not to mention being mentioned in the histories of Josephus and in Paul's letters.

The gospels narratives are bioi, and yes they contain myth. This hardly precludes them from being histories, or from containing historical information.

 

[dogsgod]

What a great contribution to the debate, and wrong on all accounts. For example, Crossan and others have put more emphasis on later gospels and less on the canonical ones.

Could you be more vague?

And while you are technically correct that it does make sense that no one wrote about him when he lived, your conclusions from this are horribly flawed. Jesus lived in a highly illiterate society. Very few people were written about AT ALL, let alone WHILE THEY LIVED. Jesus has several biographies shortly after his death, not to mention being mentioned in the histories of Josephus and in Paul's letters.

I see you like having it both ways as it suits you. They were illiterate while Jesus lived and fluent biographers shortly after he died.

The gospels narratives are bioi, and yes they contain myth. This hardly precludes them from being histories, or from containing historical information.

The ARE myth. There is nothing of any historical merit, but don't let that stop you from twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to have it both ways.

 

[Oberon]

I see you like having it both ways as it suits you. They were illiterate while Jesus lived and fluent biographers shortly after he died.

It isn't having it both ways. It stands to reason that in a primarily illiterate environment not much would be written on a preacher in a primarily poor and underclass environment until the movement grew large enough for literate people to

1. get involved
2. actually write something

Luckily, with the Jesus sect, this happens almost immediately after his death. Paul joins the mission, and writes his letters to various christian communities. Not long after, a few biographers write lives of Jesus. Josephus also takes notice, and eventually so too do the romans. This is very lucky, because most of the people in ancient history who have this much data collected and written about them in so short a period are very powerful and/or very literate. Even many of the literate people, we know nothing about. Several plays of Euripides, for example, survive, yet we know next to nothing about the man himself. Our main sources come from centuries after he lived.

[QUOTEThe ARE myth. There is nothing of any historical merit, but don't let that stop you from twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to have it both ways.[/quote]

You have compared the data in the gospels with other works in ancient history? I think not. They are early, represent controlled transmissions of traditions, and are fairly unproblematic as ancient histories/biographies go. The objection that "they contain miracles so they must be myth" is ridiculous because Jesus WAS thought to perform miracles. Plenty of historical people have taken part in historical incidents which were interpreted as miracles or magic or whatever. That Jesus did too makes him no different from many other historical figures. That the gospels record such events says NOTHING about their usefulness as ancient histories.

 

[dogsgod]

oberon, "They are early, represent controlled transmissions of traditions, and are fairly unproblematic as ancient histories/biographies go."

You have to be joking.

Who saw Jesus first?

1. Mark - appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to the eleven
2. Matthew - appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to the eleven
3. Luke - appears first to two, then to Simon, then to the eleven
4. John - appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas

1 Corinthians
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.


Controlled transmissions of traditions is a complete joke. Another joke is watching you twist yourself into pretzel explaining the nonexistence of such bunk when it comes to the central most important part of this story. Unbelievable. Someone should have mentioned these traditions to Paul because he is totally unaware, but then again they were conjured up after he died so that explains that.

The objection that "they contain miracles so they must be myth" is ridiculous because Jesus WAS thought to perform miracles.

Straw man, no one has made this argument, you're just pulling quotes out of your ***.

 

[Oberon]

You have to be joking.


Who saw Jesus first?

Thank you for pointing out once again the reason for the necessity of this thread: the complete ignorance of you and those like you on the subject.

1. MODERN historical scholarship disagrees. Does this mean it can't be considered historical?
2. Ancient history was FAR less reliable, because they did not have the same standards nor did they have access to as many sources. This harldy precludes the gospels from being history because they don't always agree. It is this completely foolish type of arguments that makes your entire stance so completely laughable to anyone who has actually studied ancient history. Even Carrier doesn't resort to the same absurd methodology

"It can't be ancient history, because it doesn't agree." Remind me to add that to the list of the major errors you have made.

Controlled transmissions of traditions is a complete joke. Another joke is watching you twist yourself into pretzel explaining the nonexistence of such bunk when it comes to the central most important part of this story. Unbelievable.

Right, 50 years of scholarship since Gehardsson's first published and plenty of data ammassed that I have in brief gone over, but it is all "bunk" because you read a couple of websites, and display the kind of absurd methodological approaches to the sources as seen above.

Someone should have mentioned these traditions to Paul because he is totally unaware, but then again they were conjured up after he died so that explains that.

Wrong again. He knows more than he said. He spent days receiving the tradition, and on a few occasions he actually cites it. The fact that he doesn't is no suprise. Plenty of early christian authors even AFTER the gospels were written and widely distributed rarely make reference to Jesus' tradition. It all depends on what they are writing and who they are writing it too.

Straw man, no one has made this argument, you're just pulling quotes out of your ***.

Wrong. This is EXACTLY what Copernicus argued.

 

[dogsgod]

Thank you for pointing out once again the reason for the necessity of this thread: the complete ignorance of you and those like you on the subject.

1. MODERN historical scholarship disagrees. Does this mean it can't be considered historical?
2. Ancient history was FAR less reliable, because they did not have the same standards nor did they have access to as many sources. This harldy precludes the gospels from being history because they don't always agree. It is this completely foolish type of arguments that makes your entire stance so completely laughable to anyone who has actually studied ancient history. Even Carrier doesn't resort to the same absurd methodology

"It can't be ancient history, because it doesn't agree." Remind me to add that to the list of the major errors you have made.

Straw man, no one mentioned anything about history. I see you're still pulling fabricated quotes out of your ***.

Right, 50 years of scholarship since Gehardsson's first published and plenty of data ammassed that I have in brief gone over, but it is all "bunk" because you read a couple of websites, and display the kind of absurd methodological approaches to the sources as seen above.

Those that can read can see your so called notions of "controlled transmissions of traditions" is unsubstantiated and doesn't fool anyone.

\Wrong again. He knows more than he said. He spent days receiving the tradition, and on a few occasions he actually cites it. The fact that he doesn't is no suprise. Plenty of early christian authors even AFTER the gospels were written and widely distributed rarely make reference to Jesus' tradition. It all depends on what they are writing and who they are writing it too.

Stop it, my sides are splitting. So what you're saying is he got what he wrote down all wrong. And this James he met was Jesus' brother, right?

Wrong. This is EXACTLY what Copernicus argued.

Debating with dead people now, are you?

 

[Oberon]

Straw man, no one mentioned anything about history. I see you're still pulling fabricated quotes out of your ***.

They are early, represent controlled transmissions of traditions, and are fairly unproblematic as ancient histories/biographies go."

You have to be joking.

You then go on to make the absurd argument that somehow contradictions in the gospel narratives disqualify them as histories. Patently absured, as even modern histories disagree, and ancient histories far more so.

Those that can read can see your so called notions of "controlled transmissions of traditions" is unsubstantiated and doesn't fool anyone.

Wrong. I have gone into it in some detail. Evidence from similar cultlures may be used to form models of how oral traditions are transmitted. These models are then checked by looking at the sources. We see Paul, Luke, Papias, John, Polycarp, etc, all clearly identifying that PARTICULAR people are considered authoritative, and that this began with Jesus' disciples. I have gone into this in some detail elsewhere. However, as you were unable to address it there, you bring that over here. However, I will have no problem going over it as we have gone over all the other many, many errors and mistakes you have made.

Stop it, my sides are splitting. So what you're saying is he got what he wrote down all wrong.

What are you talking about?

And this James he met was Jesus' brother, right?

Yes. As in Josephus and the gospels.

Debating with dead people now, are you?

why else would such stories end up containing accounts of all the fantastic miracles performed by Jesus?






You apparently think that the stories of miracles could be BS but that claims of the man's existence could not be.

Nice try. However, once again it is evident that your so called claims of my "strawman arguments" are completely false. They address arguments made by you and others, as the above quotes show directly.

 

[Copernicus]

No it isn't. Carrier isn't an expert. He is a classicist, and while that is far better than Doherty, it means he lacks the background in Jewish studies essential for understanding Jewish movements in 1st century palestine. Carrier, like Doherty, has thus far ALSO failed to interact with the bulk of over a century of critical scholarship. Moreover, there is a good reason why Doherty is ignored by actual experts.

I'm in the process of formulating a response to your several posts of a few days ago, but I just wanted to respond to this point that you've made to me and others about Carrier. You keep dismissing him as a "classicist", implying that his scholarship is therefore faulty and out of scope for this discussion. The reality is that Carrier has earned four degrees in ancient history, is Ph.D. being from Columbia University, a reputable school (and one where I served on the undergrad and grad faculties for 8 years). Not only has he had an excellent education, but he has a record of publications in the history of the Roman Empire, and he has studied the historicity question in depth. He is no rank amateur. You, on the other hand, are still a graduate student who has yet to pass a dissertation defense. It seems a bit unseemly for you to attack his work on the basis of his credentials and experience.

 

[dogsgod]

I wonder if Paul and Peter even talked about the resurrection during their little exchange considering how far apart these, ah hem, "controlled transmissions of traditions" appear to be. I can just hear the two of them now, there was twelve, or was that eleven, what women, oh yes, the women, and five brethren, did I say five, there was five hundred brethren...and that James guy, no not that James, but yes, he was there also, but you know, brother of that guy whose name starts with "J" ...anyway, he saw it too, they were all there, did I forget to mention the women?...

 

[dogsgod]

You then go on to make the absurd argument that somehow contradictions in the gospel narratives disqualify them as histories. Patently absured, as even modern histories disagree, and ancient histories far more so.

I was commenting on your "controlled transmission of traditions," and I think you know that. I hadn't got to the absurdities of gospels as historical accounts yet.

 

[Oberon]

I'm in the process of formulating a response to your several posts of a few days ago, but I just wanted to respond to this point that you've made to me and others about Carrier. You keep dismissing him as a "classicist", implying that his scholarship is therefore faulty and out of scope for this discussion. The reality is that Carrier has earned four degrees in ancient history, is Ph.D. being from Columbia University, a reputable school (and one where I served on the undergrad and grad faculties for 8 years). Not only has he had an excellent education, but he has a record of publications in the history of the Roman Empire, and he has studied the historicity question in depth. He is no rank amateur. You, on the other hand, are still a graduate student who has yet to pass a dissertation defense. It seems a bit unseemly for you to attack his work on the basis of his credentials and experience.

Wrong. I have a my own graduate degree in classics (obviously less than Carrier), so I know the field. The basic problem is that while he is perfectly equipped to deal with ancient history he lacks the knowlege of Jewish history. It simply isn't part of a classical education, but it is VITAL to understanding Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

I wonder if Paul and Peter even talked about the resurrection during their little exchange considering how far apart these, ah hem, "controlled transmissions of traditions" appear to be. I can just hear the two of them now, there was twelve, or was that eleven, what women, oh yes, the women, and five brethren, did I say five, there was five hundred brethren...and that James guy, no not that James, but yes, he was there also, but you know, brother of that guy whose name starts with "J" ...anyway, he saw it too, they were all there, did I forget to mention the women?...

The intellectual analysis one would expect given prior responses.

I was commenting on your "controlled transmission of traditions," and I think you know that. I hadn't got to the absurdities of gospels as historical accounts yet.

Funny. Because as everyone can see, what you quoted was my statement that the gospels fit quite well into the genre of ancient history/biography. You then proceeded to list differences in the accounts as if this was actual evidence they don't belong in this genre.

 

[Copernicus]

Wrong. I have a my own graduate degree in classics (obviously less than Carrier), so I know the field. The basic problem is that while he is perfectly equipped to deal with ancient history he lacks the knowlege of Jewish history. It simply isn't part of a classical education, but it is VITAL to understanding Jesus.

Not vital, but helpful. And you really don't know what he knows about Jewish history in those times. He happens to know a lot about Roman and Greek history that may also be VITAL in this discussion. What you need to do--and have not done--is explain what it is about Jewish history that you think is so VITAL to the argument. Your inability to explain it clearly weakens your argument.