Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[michaelsherlock]

...as the primary material we have for the Jesus of history, if such a person existed, comes from the Gospels, which are interwoven with obvious mythological components.

Good post michael, but it just brings us to what I see as square one: who wrote the Gospels? Only then can you begin to answer the 'Jesus question'.

Thanks. I think you are right FTR. No matter what extra-biblical source we might try to use to establish an historical Jesus, we never ascend beyond the reach of the Gospels. That is, every non-Christian source we have for an historical Jesus, aside from the fourth century forged Josephus passage (TF) and the 3rd Century "Jesus the brother of James" "Who was called Christ" in the Antiquities of the Jews, keeping in mind that the latter reference was likely altered with regards to the phrase, "who was called Christ" as the most likely Jesus in this reference was Jesus the son of Damneus, who is given the position of High Priesthood after James, his brother, is wrongfully killed by Ananus. We have only Seutonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, and these guys are all writing in the 2nd century, and only mention the religion of Christianity and its founder, which is as good as a person referring to followers of Buddha, at that time, as proof that Buddha existed.

I agree with you, it is a very circular situation, and anytime we get trapped in a circular ride for too long, we get dizzy and the rational faculties fail us. This is the problem with Christian apologetics, in my opinion.

[DeistPaladin]

Something actually written by JC himself would do for a kickoff. And I don't mean John Cleese, Jim Carrey or Jeremy Clarkson.

That was the first thing that leaped out at me as suspicious about the whole story. Jesus came to deliver an important message of salvation to all of humanity, not just the people of Judea of his time but all people all over the globe for all time ...and never wrote anything down.

We have the books of Moses (allegedly the Pentateuch). We have the epistles of Paul. Why not a book of Jesus so we could get the message straight from the horse's mouth.

But no, that job got delegated to flawed mortal beings, giving us contradictory ideas about Jesus and what exactly he preached.

I once confronted the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on this question. The answer was the predictable, lame, "Well, Jesus wanted it that way."

[Cyberman]

The best response I ever heard about the dearth of anything written by or about JC during his alleged lifetime was from a theist caller to the Atheist Experience (the clip is on YouTube but it'll take me ages to track it down). When Matt D asked him the million dollar question, the caller replied (drumroll please):

"Well, back in the first century, the people didn't have anything to write on..."

Pointing out that there were people such as historians at that time fazed him not in the slightest.

[FallentoReason]

Good post michael, but it just brings us to what I see as square one: who wrote the Gospels? Only then can you begin to answer the 'Jesus question'.

Thanks. I think you are right FTR. No matter what extra-biblical source we might try to use to establish an historical Jesus, we never ascend beyond the reach of the Gospels. That is, every non-Christian source we have for an historical Jesus, aside from the fourth century forged Josephus passage (TF) and the 3rd Century "Jesus the brother of James" "Who was called Christ" in the Antiquities of the Jews, keeping in mind that the latter reference was likely altered with regards to the phrase, "who was called Christ" as the most likely Jesus in this reference was Jesus the son of Damneus, who is given the position of High Priesthood after James, his brother, is wrongfully killed by Ananus. We have only Seutonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, and these guys are all writing in the 2nd century, and only mention the religion of Christianity and its founder, which is as good as a person referring to followers of Buddha, at that time, as proof that Buddha existed.

I agree with you, it is a very circular situation, and anytime we get trapped in a circular ride for too long, we get dizzy and the rational faculties fail us. This is the problem with Christian apologetics, in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree completely. I think the answer can be easily attained, but only if one is ready to step back and look at the Gospels from different perspectives than just an historical account.

Philo of Alexandria foreshadows most of the Christian teachings in his allegorical works of the OT. This I believe is the sort of route and lead that will give you an interpretation of the Gospels that best fit what we know of the era in its entirety.

---

I once confronted the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on this question. The answer was the predictable, lame, "Well, Jesus wanted it that way."

That reminds me of the response I got to why Matthew and John were written in third person. "They felt humbled by the presence of Jesus".

[DeistPaladin]

Let me see if I can put it differently. If one is wondering where the stories of Jesus came from, it is probably distinctly and obviously unhelpful to assume his nonexistence, a position not held by the vast majority of religous and secular scholarship for the last 2,000 years, including today. Rather, I would simply check out all primary source material that is available and attempt to answer the question; what best accounts for the existence of these stories or myths? The non-existence of such a person wouldn't be the first answer to the question that popped out at me. One might as well assume that the 60 million deaths between 1938 to 1945 had nothing to do with war and yet still attempt to answer the question..."what caused the 60 million deaths between 1938 and 1945?". Do you not see the problem?

I think it's fair to say that most scholars were and are willing to assume the existence of a "historical Jesus" whatever that's supposed to mean (I maintain that Jesus without the super powers, miracles and other aspects of divinity would be so different that the "real story" would bear no resemblance to the one we're familiar with). Christianity still swings a heavy bat and while they can't torture or burn heretics at the stake, they can still ruin your career and get you fired.

I have, btw, an open invitation to debate the "historical Jesus" with any taker, Christian or otherwise, provided we can agree on the bare minimum of what qualifies as "The Historical Jesus".

Back to the topic, let's assume that scholars are genuine in their assertions that some mortal teacher must have existed behind Christian mythology. It still would do nothing to prove that a Jesus must have existed. This is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Even experts have to prove what they believe and why. "Shut up, I say so" isn't an acceptable argument even from experts.

Your comparison to the holocaust, implicitly linking Jesus skeptics to holocaust deniers, is a fallacious ad hominem. It's an attempt to poison the well, nothing more.

Your assertion that there must have been some mortal teacher behind Christian mythology is called an argument from ignorance.

I invite you to review the debate thread I have linked.

[Minimalist]

The best response I ever heard about the dearth of anything written by or about JC during his alleged lifetime was from a theist caller to the Atheist Experience (the clip is on YouTube but it'll take me ages to track it down). When Matt D asked him the million dollar question, the caller replied (drumroll please):

"Well, back in the first century, the people didn't have anything to write on..."

Pointing out that there were people such as historians at that time fazed him not in the slightest.

Xtians are as dumb as the proverbial bag of cunt hair.

[michaelsherlock]

Yeah, I agree completely. I think the answer can be easily attained, but only if one is ready to step back and look at the Gospels from different perspectives than just an historical account.

I agree. Historicists like Ehrman and others, say we should take into account Genre, but to what point does this genre encroach upon historical reliability? This is the main question. If the Gospels were supportive, or auxilliary accounts of this person called, Jesus, then I think their genre would not completely encroach on reliability, but as it is, they are the primary material we have for Jesus. Further, if Church history wasn't what it was for over a millenium '(evidence destroying), then I think genre would be less of a problem as well. But this is not the case.

Philo of Alexandria foreshadows most of the Christian teachings in his allegorical works of the OT. This I believe is the sort of route and lead that will give you an interpretation of the Gospels that best fit what we know of the era in its entirety.

---

Again, I agree. I wrote a parody in my book which touches on this issue. It deals primarily with the lack of testimony from Philo regarding Jesus, but involves the question of idea-theft.

[Minimalist]

Historicists like Ehrman and others, say we should take into account Genre,

"Historicists" like Ehrman need to explain what they mean by "historicity." They certainly don't mean a miracle working godboy....and without that what use is fucking jesus?

[FallentoReason]

I agree. Historicists like Ehrman and others, say we should take into account Genre, but to what point does this genre encroach upon historical reliability? This is the main question. If the Gospels were supportive, or auxilliary accounts of this person called, Jesus, then I think their genre would not completely encroach on reliability, but as it is, they are the primary material we have for Jesus. Further, if Church history wasn't what it was for over a millenium '(evidence destroying), then I think genre would be less of a problem as well. But this is not the case.

My question to those guys would be 'how did you determine the genre?' Compare the Gospels to say Josephus and they're written in different styles. The Gospels have this story-telling vibe to them. I actually read a review of Mark as a work of fiction and the guy was so right. The author used elements of story-telling to lead on the reader and set expectations, kind of like a movie. He explained how the women saw the stone rolled back, which is a good thing because previously they were wondering how they would get in. They then get to the tomb and the reader expects Jesus to be there but instead there's the young man. So initially the reader is puzzled by this, but there's the hope that the man knows something about Jesus, which he does (or claims to know). So again, the reader expects the women to go find what they're after, but(!), to the reader's shock they run out with the intention of telling no one... And that's where it ends! Absolute drama in play. That is no history account.

Again, I agree. I wrote a parody in my book which touches on this issue. It deals primarily with the lack of testimony from Philo regarding Jesus, but involves the question of idea-theft.

He would have been a prime suspect for testing positive for a historical Jesus seeing as though they had a common philosophical understanding of sorts. Hmmm..

[michaelsherlock]

I agree. Historicists like Ehrman and others, say we should take into account Genre, but to what point does this genre encroach upon historical reliability? This is the main question. If the Gospels were supportive, or auxilliary accounts of this person called, Jesus, then I think their genre would not completely encroach on reliability, but as it is, they are the primary material we have for Jesus. Further, if Church history wasn't what it was for over a millenium '(evidence destroying), then I think genre would be less of a problem as well. But this is not the case.

My question to those guys would be 'how did you determine the genre?' Compare the Gospels to say Josephus and they're written in different styles. The Gospels have this story-telling vibe to them. I actually read a review of Mark as a work of fiction and the guy was so right. The author used elements of story-telling to lead on the reader and set expectations, kind of like a movie. He explained how the women saw the stone rolled back, which is a good thing because previously they were wondering how they would get in. They then get to the tomb and the reader expects Jesus to be there but instead there's the young man. So initially the reader is puzzled by this, but there's the hope that the man knows something about Jesus, which he does (or claims to know). So again, the reader expects the women to go find what they're after, but(!), to the reader's shock they run out with the intention of telling no one... And that's where it ends! Absolute drama in play. That is no history account.

Again, I agree. I wrote a parody in my book which touches on this issue. It deals primarily with the lack of testimony from Philo regarding Jesus, but involves the question of idea-theft.

He would have been a prime suspect for testing positive for a historical Jesus seeing as though they had a common philosophical understanding of sorts. Hmmm..

Good points. Professor of Classical Mythology and Literature, Elizabeth Vandiver, in her definition of what constitutes myth, says; it must be a narrative. In a recent article I have written, I am comparing the 6 main elements of what constitutes a myth, to the Christian tale. Part 1 is already posted, and it addresses, very briefly, this aspect. Good going, FTR, you certainly have done your homework.