"Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?"

[unkleE]

Jul 18, 2013 4:07:01 GMT wraggy said:

does my friend have a point when he says, quote:

They assume, a priori, that Jesus must have existed and work from there without ever substantiating the claim first. Meanwhile, they have no problem accepting that Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other 'godmen', are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures. So, they're all mythicists EXCEPT when it comes to Jesus.

I am not a historian, even an amateur one, but I have done a little research on Jesus and pagan gods.

I based my conclusions on scholars who are well recognised in their field:

• JZ Smith - Professor of Humanities at Chicago University, one of the most respected historians of religion and a recognised expert on Christianity and pagan religions.
  
• TND Mettinger - Professor emeritus, Lund University, Sweden, author of the definitive work on Christianity and pagan religions.
  
• Ronald Nash - formerly professor of Philosophy and Theology at several universities, and author of two books relevant to this discussion.
  
• Bart Ehrman - Professor at the University of North Carolina and author of many books.
  
• Edwin Yamauchi - Professor Emeritus of History at Miami University and author of many books on (among other things) ancient Middle Eastern religions.
  

My reading of their collective conclusion is this:

For a whole range of reasons, the legends and rituals of pagan mystery religious could not and did not have a significant influence on the development of christianity. There may have been minor parallels and influences, but nothing that explains the teachings of Jesus or his early followers.

Jesus was a historical figure, whose life and death occurred at a known time and place, with eyewitnesses present, whereas the pagan religious had no such historical basis. The pagan gods were fertility gods who died every year in some ritual sense, but not in history, whereas Jesus died once in history for quite different reasons. It is therefore difficult to see how the factual events of Jesus' life could be copied.

In short, his life and death make sense within first century Judaism, whether one believes he was divine or not, and very little sense in a pagan context.

So there are significant differences between Jesus and these other figures.

However my experience is that I have met few internet sceptics who accept this verdict. They accuse the scholars of being biased and beholden to the church (the same old mythicist line), despite many of them not being christians. They want us to be sceptical of a whole raft of scholars but not sceptical of them. I doubt you'll make much progress, though it's worth trying.

Finally, I have read a number of scholars on whether Jesus existed (e.g. Michael Grant, Maurice Casey, Robert Van Voorst, Bart Ehrman, EP Sanders), and I don't see there any assumption that Jesus existed. Rather I see their recognition of the fact that ancient texts mention Jesus, and so his existence is a question to be answered from the evidence, one which they answer affirmatively.

[bjorn]

Here we go again...

www.salon.com/2013/07/14/zealot_the_real_jesus/

"Very little is known about the historical Jesus, as opposed to the Jesus of myth who appears in the New Testament. He is mentioned by the 1st-century historian Flavius Josephus in reference to his brother, James, who led Jesus’ followers after his death. Two second-century Roman historians, Tacitus and Pliny, also refer to Jesus’ arrest and execution in discussing the movement he founded. Other than that, we have to rely on biblical writings, particularly the gospels — the earliest of which (Mark) was written down almost 40 years after Jesus’ death."

So who do we call?

"The latest to try is Reza Aslan, a professor of creative writing with a background in religious studies, which seems like just about the right configuration of skills. "

Precisely. His solution is more interesting than most creative writers, though.

"i]The picture he uncovers is very different from the now-common view of an unworldly pacifist preaching a creed of universal love and forgiveness. Instead, Aslan’s Jesus is a provincial peasant turned roving preacher and insurrectionist, a “revolutionary Jewish nationalist” calling for the expulsion of Roman occupiers and the overthrow of a wealthy and corrupt Jewish priestly caste. Furthermore, once this overthrow was achieved, Jesus probably expected to become king.[/i]"

And of course, nothing has any link to the guy being a ... muslim.

"Although Aslan never explicitly states as much, the parallels to today — to certain deeply religious and nationalist Muslims who zealously strive to cast out foreign occupiers and corrupt clerics — are hard to ignore, especially when Aslan describes Sicarii shouting, “No lord but God!” "

Though that also might tend to make his picture less palapable.

"Perhaps “Zealot” is partly intended to make today’s zealots seem less alien and scary, or perhaps it’s meant to suggest that all religions go through a process of maturation that simply takes time. If so, I’m not sure it works. The historical Jesus’ call for justice is stirring, but the xenophobic and theocratic society he allegedly advocated is not — in fact, it sounds a lot like what the worst of (so-called) Christians seek today. I may not be a Christian myself, but even I can see that Jesus the Christ stands for something better than that."

[merkavah12]

Wow. I can see where the "creative writing" background comes in.

But okay, I can play that game too:

"LORD OF THE THUNDERCATS: The 'Real' Reza Aslan

By: MILBORG SERIES 800 MODEL 4 #65811


We have no proof for a historical Reza Aslan, but what we do have suggests that the writer
if he truly existed at all, was most likely not as presented.

First of all, 'Aslan' is a name that appears
in an ancient book of fables (known to the savage tribes that once roamed what is now Neo-England, as 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe') and is depicted as a talking lion. As such, we do not need any further evidence to assert that this 'Reza Aslan' was merely a propaganda figure to 'lionize' members of the group known as the "Salonistas" (because he was a lion....and lions--wait for it--lionize, see? ) .

Secondly, based on his writings, it is obvious that this 'Reza' (once again, if he existed at all) was a mad man who wrote non-linear, non-nonsensical stories about historical figures. The purpose of these stories is unknown, but the insinuation that he honestly thought that anyone would be stupid enough to believe them is offensive, racist, speciest and sexist. Those who have made said insinuation have been, thankfully, incinerated for their offense. PRAISE BE TO OVERLORD NUTTERBOSS.

Thirdly, he most likely consumed the hearts of his enemies and shot lasers out of his nipples while crying for his mother. Why? Because reasons.

As you can clearly see, whether or not Reza Aslan (a talking lion man, really? FNARF FNARF!) existed. It is clear that our safe, clean society could never tolerate the consumption of hearts, the mad stories, or the horror of energy discharging teats. Anyone claiming otherwise is obviously deluded (as are those anarchist monsters who would suggest that our world would produce such a foul anarchist). Let us look at him for what he stands for, something better. So I will say that he instead stands for Ideological Purity and the Vaporization of all Non-Augmented Persons. There. That is better, safer, and most importantly, it obeys the MIGHTY OVERLORD NUTTERBOSS. KILL THE UN-AUGMENTED. DESTROY THE MUTANT. PURGE THE NON-CONFORMING."

[ignorantianescia]

Wait, so there is a "now-common view of an unworldly pacifist preaching a creed of universal love and forgiveness"? I thought that that opinion - and we might as well throw in the apparent corollary belief he proclaimed the Rechtsstaat, free trade, political representation, legal and gradual social emancipation and the separation of state and church - was a common view in the mid-nineteenth century, but being already less credible at the end of that century when Johannes Weiß launched the theory of the eschatological prophet. The latter looks like more of a now-common view.


@ Merkavah:

Here is evidence of Salonistas inventing traditions to explain the awkward fact away that there is no proof of the historical Reza Aslan. An alternative explanation is offered that a lionised Aslan is sent away because of household sanitation concerns, of course mirroring the then-common "health and safety" trope.


Caption: "Mum says you have to go. I told you to use the litter box."

Note of course that "litter box" is a witty reference to contemporary anti-Salonista polemics, which on the one hand claimed if Aslan wrote those deranged stories they must have ended up in the "bin bag" and on the other hand used the argument of "Brussels' thunderpot" to discredit the idea of an existent Reza Aslan. By reframing them all as "litter box", divine vindication of these cognitively dissonant arguments became possible.

[wraggy]

I was going to hammer out some sort of reply today to my Jesus Myth friend but someone far better equipped beat me to it.

www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-god-question.885882/page-320

[unkleE]

I looked at the reference and only found the usual statements made with little knowledge of historical study. Or did I just not read down far enough?

[wraggy]

Jul 26, 2013 6:17:27 GMT unkleE said:

I looked at the reference and only found the usual statements made with little knowledge of historical study. Or did I just not read down far enough?

No, you obviously did not. Tim did a very good job of silencing the mythers.

I hope Tim O'Neill does not mind me putting in a plug for his blog at that particular web page.

[unkleE]

Ah, got it. I was just too impatient to scan down far enough. Thanks.

[merkavah12]

Jul 26, 2013 4:12:01 GMT wraggy said:

I was going to hammer out some sort of reply today to my Jesus Myth friend but someone far better equipped beat me to it.

www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-god-question.885882/page-320

Me watching the "Debate":



Tim doesn't so much "debate" Mythers as much as he "defenestrates" Mythers. Ouch!

[sandwiches]

I found the critique of Carrier's article interesting though the exhanges with the poster "Pie eyed" were the comedic highlight:

Pie eyed: Suppose that you point to a little of the evidence which supports the existence of Jesus, the man, first then we can go toward evidence of divinity.

T.O' Neill: Why the hell would I be interested in "evidence of divinity"? What part of "I'm an atheist" don't you understand? Are you even reading my posts?

[bjorn]

Then the reviews are starting to appear on RC's Bayes book.

One who finds it boring but sound is the guy blogging at confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blogspot.no/2013/07/proving-history.html

He thinks RC has shown that the standard criteria in the The third quest are invalid and that Bayes is God better.

Perhaps the most interesting chapter in the book is Chapter 5, where he looks at the various criteria used by historians involved in the 'quest' for the 'Historical Jesus' and either demonstrates that each criterion reduces to Bayes's Theorem, or is invalid as a method. Thus the point is proved, Bayes's Theorem is the fundamental valid method underlying all other historicity criteria.

Taken one by one:

1: Dissimilarity: demonstrated to be invalid.

2: Embarrassment: similarly invalid. Carrier deconstructs this one at great length, indeed, it is the largest part of the chapter by far. Along the way, he makes a very interesting statement that I must investigate further sometime:
"Its worth remarking here, ..., that everyone literate enough to compose books in antiquity was educated almost exclusively in the specific skill of persuasion: that is what all writing was believed to be for, and how all literate persons were taught to write." (page 134)
Thus, everything in an ancient book was there for the purpose of convincing the reader of something, so nothing embarrassing which hindered this purpose would be included.

3: Coherence: shown to be invalid.

4: Multiple attestation: shown to be invalid.

5: Explanatory credibility: consistent with Bayes, but can only exclude, never confirm.

6: Contextual plausibility: similarly consistent with Bayes.

7: Historical plausibility: again, consistent with Bayes, but is incomplete.

8: Natural probability: consistent with Bayes, but doesn't make as strong a case as could be formulated with Bayes, so Bayes supersedes this method.

9: Oral preservability: consistent with Bayes, but can only exclude.

10: Crucifixion (the theory has to explain why Jesus was deemed worthy of crucifixion): not valid.

11: Fabricatory trend: consistent with Bayes, but can only exclude.

12: Least distinctiveness: of limited use, but consistent with Bayes.

13: Vividness of narration: shown to be invalid.

14: Textual variance: invalid.

15: Greek context: invalid.

16: Aramaic context: invalid.

17: Discourse features: invalid.

18: Characteristic Jesus: invalid, as it relies on many of the above invalid methods.

Wow. I hadn't realised there were so many rubbish criteria in use by Historical Jesus scholars. Carrier shows that most of them are useless and the rest of them are poor-man's versions of Bayes, so to use Bayes directly is better than using any of them.

While one might rather say wow when anyone thinks someone like RC can come away with making the history profession a branch of matemathics.

However, it is indeed fortunate for him to have discovered a method he can use to prove points about Jesus' non-existense, points he originally reached by other means.

It is no hinder that Bayes may make him able to impress fans even more and easier overwhelm unprepared opponents.

[fortigurn]

Jul 29, 2013 16:24:55 GMT bjorn said:

One who finds it boring but sound is the guy blogging at confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blogspot.no/2013/07/proving-history.html

I wonder if my comment will make it through moderation.

"Thus the point is proved, Bayes's Theorem is the fundamental valid method underlying all other historicity criteria."

The fact that you follow Carrier's error of wrongly describing the criteria of AUTHENTICITY as criteria of HISTORICITY, shows you (like he), needs to read more on the subject. I suggest you start with a basic primer on the quest for the historical Jesus, so you actually know what you're talking about first.

[wraggy]

Aug 24, 2012 13:10:38 GMT timoneill said:

According to Jim West and James McGrath, we will soon see another attack on the Mythers by an esteemed (non-Christian) scholar. Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey will be released in the next 12 months, apparently. Anyone who has read his weighty and superb Jesus of Nazareth from earlier this year or read his smackdown of Doherty and Godfrey on Joseph Hoffmann's blog will be keen to see what he has to say. He's a man who doesn't exactly pull his punches and it seems the online Myther treehouse club has got him ready to come out swinging.

I have pre ordered it along with Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria and Owen Gingerich's The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, which arrived today and should keep me busy for a while.