Talk:Jesus myth theory/Archive2

Someone on badhistory doesn't like this page
But so far, it's just him: 15:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/Badhistory2/comments/4ck8wi/rational_wiki_fails_to_be_rational_about_jesus/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/Badhistory2/comments/4ck8wi/rational_wiki_fails_to_be_rational_about_jesus/


 * As mentioned on that page it is like the complainer on badhistory didn't even read this page or if they did they certainly didn't understand it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This article should be renamed to "Jesus ahistoricity theory" as per the modern academic debate. Do the Pauline epistles indicate a Mythological Ahistoricity Jesus or a Supernatural Historicity (thus some possible Natural Historicity) Jesus. I would be interested in seeing a poll on how many editors still believe in the Natural Historicity Jesus v. Mythological Ahistoricity Jesus. 69.197.181.194 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article's still at "Christ myth theory" and notes "Jesus myth theory" as a second name, but not the one you put forward, which gets a grand total of 10 Google hits - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that "Christ myth theory" gets far more hits then "Jesus myth theory" in Google Books (About 1,260 results vs About 428 results). Also if you go the Christ myth page at wikiquotes you will see "Christ myth theory" is used far more often then "Jesus myth theory"--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Christ is a religious term. Jesus is a name. I say we stay with the latter. Christ is certainly a myth. Jesus (of Nazareth) may have been a real person. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wait for the Biblical Studies dinosaurs to go extinct and then change the article name, which is imprecise and outdated. The rational ethic should be pro-active in regards to clarification and greater precision. The new rational baseline has been set - Lataster, Raphael "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources." Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015). - download pdf - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "Jesus Ahistoricity" brings with it it own issues. Ahistoricity per Merriam-Webster is defined as "not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition"  but where does that leave ideas that Jesus lived outside the "standard" 4 BCE-36 CE?
 * I remind you that Carrier used "Ahistoricity" to describe Price's idea of a legendary Jesus via Paul and a flesh and blood man who was used as the basis of the Gospel account but that is NOT how the majority of sources define either "Christ myth theory" or "Jesus myth theory"; those sources go the 'Jesus didn't exist at all as a human being' route.
 * For example, we have ahistorical stories of people we know that actually existed. For example, there is the story that Abraham Lincoln was a much beloved President.  In reality, even the most casual examination of the contemporary material will reveal he was arguably the most hated President of the United States. His assassination on a Good Friday caused him to be turned into a kind "American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land" in the North (within days) while the South turned him into their "Greatest Friend" who if he had lived would have spared them from Reconstruction.
 * "The Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources" article still follows the excluded middle route: "Simultaneously, there have been recent efforts by so-called mythicist scholars (those positing that Jesus was an entirely fictitious figure) to bring their brand of Jesus scepticism to the mainstream. The more conventional Jesus historicists (those positing that Jesus’ historicity is a certainty) have responded in kind." So I don't see what this term brings to the table.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Carrier is probably the leading proponent of this, and is usually called a mythicist. Lataster (who iirc did his doctorate on Carrier) claims to be a Jesus agnostic. There's really 2 aspects to Carrier and Lataster's writings: the idea that Jesus wasn't a historical figure (a theory you can call ahistoricism which is based on skepticism about the evidence for a historical Jesus), and the Celestial Jesus theory which holds that original Christians (especially Paul of Tarsus) believed Jesus was a supernatural being who never had an earthly, fleshly form (this is similar to the heresy of docetism). I think "Jesus myth" or "Christ myth" captures both sides of that. Although it might be better to have a separate article on Celestial Jesus to cover the second half of the theory, and fold the material on Jesus's historicity or ahistoricity into the article on the historical evidence for Jesus. Annquin (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" also notes, that Jesus was regarded as a pre-existent incarnate divine being from the earliest recorded history of Christianity. A separate article on Celestial Jesus would help clarify the issue. 69.197.181.194 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You both need to reread the "The correct Jesus to argue about and the gray area between historical and mythical (the Ahistorical realm)" section. Note the "Carrier give a lot of leeway with his criteria but there are a lot of ways one can fail the criteria and still have a flesh and blood Jesus" part.


 * John Robertson's 1900 idea that the Gospel Jesus was a composite character or that a person inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, tried to preach his own version of Paul's teachings, and got killed for his troubles fails the criteria.


 * The idea expressed by Remsberg that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."


 * G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" (This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical')


 * Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria as Baker's first century personality need not be named "Jesus" or if he did his movement was not identifiable until much later.


 * [Deleted info]

Note that all the examples above do not meet these [mythical Jesus] criteria either so you have a hypothetical Jesus who is neither historical or mythical by Carrier's standard but who can be both by other people's criteria!

I should note that Ehrman in his 2012 Did Jesus Exist Harper Collins on p. 12 stated "[The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

This means Ehrman is saying the idea that Jesus did exist but did not found Christianity is a part of the "Christ Myth" (or whatever name you want to give it) theory. Again we have two branches of this theory as explained in the intro:

"So from nearly the get go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought: There was no human being being behind the New Testament and confused memories of an obscure historical figure were woven into the mythology. For the most part the 'no human being being behind the New Testament' version is presented as the Christ myth theory ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version."

Remsburg clearly states that he thought the evidence supported the idea Jesus existed as human being but the Gospel account was clearly not historical which is the very definition of ahistorical

So again I fail to see how this changes anything that is presented in the article.

The term be it "Christ Myth", "Jesus Myth" or "ahistoricitical Jesus" has been use for a myriad of things INCLUDING IDEAS THAT HAVE JESUS EXISTING AS A HUMAN BEING. That is the reality of the situation and why this article is so long.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Orthodox Biblical Studies can not tolerate the notion of pissant Jesus Historicity, legendary Jesus Historicity, agnostic Jesus Historicity. They know where and when Jesus was crucified and then work backwards to prove it (see Licona’s Final Reply: The Gospels are “historically reliable” accounts of Jesus). Some of these dissident historicity viewpoints are excluded from the Jesus Historicity debate by labeling them "myth" or "ahistorical". If these viewpoints are correct then ipso facto they are not "myth" or "ahistorical". Case in point, "no historical Jesus worthy of the name." What does "worthy" mean ? It is just a weaselly way to call it a myth theory. ANY IDEAS THAT HAVE JESUS EXISTING AS A HUMAN BEING should be considered under Jesus Historicity. 69.197.181.194 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This goes back to the Meaning of "myth" and Meaning of "Jesus myth theory" sections which address the problem. As noted in the article Biblical studies professor J. W. Rogerson covered much the same material Remsburg did 70 years earlier regarding the meaning of "myth" and various sources (including Ehrman in 2012) have defined "Christ Myth" (or whatever name you want to give it) theory so broadly as to iINCLUDE the idea Jesus existed as human being.  You may not like it but that is what the sources say.  Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So then how about keeping this article as is and creating 2 new articles for the purpose of clarification:
 * Jesus historicity theory
 * Jesus ahistoricity theory


 * The Jesus historicity theory article would note the gospel-Jesus historicity viewpoint and other historicity viewpoints such as "the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century []esus]" (Carrier 2014, OHJ).


 * The Jesus ahistoricity theory article would note—as per prev. comment by Annquin—the celestial-Jesus ahistoricity viewpoint and other ahistoricity viewpoints. 69.197.181.194 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem. Wells' John Frum like Jesus (ie mythical Paul Jesus + inspired 1st century teacher) has been classified as "Christ Myth" (ie part of the "Jesus ahistoricity theory"). Mead's Jesus lived c 100 BCE has also been put into the "Christ Myth" category.

Note what Robertson said back in 1900 (and summated in 1946): "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." - Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Eerdmans Pub Co 1982, 1995

Like it or not the "Christ Myth" (or whatever name you want to give it) theory has been defined so broadly as to INCLUDE the idea Jesus existed as human being. And that broad definition has been used off and on for well over 100 years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What if what you just said was the lead paragraph for the new article Jesus ahistoricity theory,"The 'Christ Myth' (or whatever name you want to give it) theory has been defined so broadly as to INCLUDE the idea that Jesus existed as human being. And that broad definition has been used off and on for well over 100 years. (On the multiple uses and definitional complexities of the term ‘ahistoricity'—including its relationship to 'Christ Myth'—see the article Jesus myth theory). The following article uses the term 'Jesus ahistoricity' in a limited sense defined as [some definition]."--69.197.181.194 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "Jesus ahistoricity" is a much a mess in terms of definition as "Christ Myth" and "Jesus Myth" are; Carrier in his Stanford, 30 May 2006 presentation handout uses "ahistoricity" in regards to everything from George Wells to Robert Price to Arthur Drews.  If you look up  "Jesus ahistoricity" (with the quotes) on Google books you get Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist as one of the results--which puts you right back into the "Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." domain.


 * If I may be so bold this whole position sounds like an attempt to strawman the argument rather then address the issue that ALL the terms have been used with such gay abandon that NONE is exclusively 'Jesus never existed as a human being'. Heck, if anything based on Ehrman and Carrier, "Jesus ahistoricity" is as inclusive as  "Christ Myth" and "Jesus Myth" are so what is the point?


 * Besides, selecting a subset definition would open up the whole 'which author is using this term in this manner' bugaboo and we had enough of that nonsense on wikipedia's Christ Myth page thank you very much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is an irresolvable cluster bomb. Therefore the rational conclusion is to declare all previous definitions of the historicity/ahistoricity of Jesus as null and void. And then to correctly and precisely define Jesus historicity/ahistoricity theory in the context of Set theory:


 * The Historicity set is the set of all premises for a historical Jesus:
 * a. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
 * b. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
 * c. This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
 * d. Jesus was born between 10 BCE and 10CE.
 * e. Jesus was born 100 BCE.
 * f. etc.


 * The Ahistoricity set and Historicity set are disjoint. i.e The Ahistoricity set is the set of all premises for Jesus that are not elements of the Historicity set.

Per Jesus Historicity Theory;
 * The Domain of Jesus Historicity Theory is the Power Set of the Historicity set.
 * Any definition of a "criteria for a minimal historical Jesus" is also an element of the Power set of the Historicity set.

This is just a rough outline and needs more work, but the gist of it should be clear. 69.197.181.194 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As said before the problem with that is the reference material says something totally different per the Meaning of "Jesus myth theory" section. Besides part of the point of this article is to show how broadly the term has been used some thing wikipedia's Christ Myth theory article avoids like crazy.  Finally, where does this leave Volney?  Remember this from the lead in:


 * However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on what the Christ myth was. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths while Volney allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically.[10] So from nearly the get go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought: There was no human being being behind the New Testament and confused memories of an obscure historical figure were woven into the mythology. For the most part the 'no human being being behind the New Testament' version is presented as the Christ myth theory ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.


 * As I keep saying this will just make what is already a messed up term in 'what the sam hill does it mean' even more confusing. Also this doesn't address Wells' current legendary Jesus via Paul+actual man whose history was altered to fit Paul's account.   We can't play Humpty Dumpty of Through the Looking Glass and say terms whatever we want them to mean.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson case study

 * What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


 * [A Mythical Jesus viewpoint is, that if Jesus did exist], he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.


 * Other writers who are often placed in the mythicist camp present a slightly different view, namely, that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity, a religion rooted in the mythical Christ-figure invented by its original adherents. This view was represented in midcentury by Archibald Robinson, who thought that even though there was a Jesus, “we know next to nothing about this Jesus.” (A. Robertson, Jesus: Myth or History?, 107.) [Robertson, Archibald. Jesus: Myth or History? London: Watts & Co., 1946.]

Per Thompson:
 * The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story’s plot were also expectations of a historical Jesus and early Judaism ...are not justified.


 * Whether the gospels in fact are biographies—narratives about the life of a historical person—is doubtful. Their pedagogical and legendary character reduces their value for historical reconstruction. New Testament scholars commonly hold the opinion that a historical person would be something very different from the Christ (or messiah), with whom, for example, the author of the Gospel of Mark identifies his Jesus (Hebrew: Joshua = savior), opening his book with the statement: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, God’s son.”

Per Ehrman:

Per Thompson:
 * In a 2012 online article, Thompson defended his qualifications to address New Testament issues.

Semi-mythicists:

(Semi-Myth) = Semi-mythicist. Endorses the existence of a prophet at the origin of Christianity, but maintains that prophet had little or no resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth.

1791 • (Semi-Myth) COMPTE DE VOLNEY, Les Ruines. Volney argued that the gospel story was compiled organically when simple allegorical statements like “the virgin has brought forth” were misunderstood as history. Volney parted company with Dupuis by allowing that confused memories of an obscure historical figure may have contributed to Christianity when they were integrated with solar mythology. He predicted the final union of all religions and the recognition of a common truth underlying them all.

1871 • (Semi-myth) SYTZE HOEKSTRA, De Christologie van het kanonische Marcus-Evangelie (Dutch). One of the first Dutch Radicals, Hoekstra considered Mark’s gospel worthless as a biography of Jesus. For him, the synoptics are symbolic poetry.

1886 • (Semi-Myth) ABRAHAM DIRK LOMAN. Quaestiones Paulinae (“Questions on the Paulines”) contends that not only Galatians, but all of Paul’s Epistles are (following Bruno Bauer) 2nd century forgeries. Loman finds no evidence of the Paulinae before Marcion and considers the epistles to be Gnostic treatises. For him, Jesus is a 2nd century fiction though ‘some’ Jesus may have existed, quite buried in history. The Jesus of Christianity is an ideal symbol, a non-historical construction.

1914 • (Semi-Myth) FREDERICK C. CONYBEARE, The historical Christ, or, An investigation of the views of Mr. J.M. Robertson, Dr. A. Drews, and Prof. W.B. Smith. Conybeare was an Orientalist and Professor of Theology at Oxford. For him, the texts show a gradual deification of an existing human source.

1930 • (Semi-myth) DANIEL MASSÉ, The Enigma of Jesus Christ. Massé believed that Jesus was in fact John of Gamala, the son of Judas of Gamala. The true Nazareth was Gamala, where Jesus bar Judah was born. Massé viewed the gospels as deliberate efforts on the part of the Church to falsify history. For him, exegesis is a way in which ecclesiastics propagandize the masses.

1957 • (Semi-Myth) JOHN MARCO ALLEGRO, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity. Prof. Allegro, one of the original DSS team, had the courage to buck his teammates. Prescient in many ways, Allegro’s provocative proposals may not be all correct but they nevertheless attest to a remarkable scholar.

1975 • (Semi-Myth) GEORGE A. WELLS, Did Jesus Exist? Greatly influenced by Arthur Drews, Wells is a prolific writer and arguably the foremost mythicist representative in Europe today. Wells may be best characterized as a semi-mythicist, for he does not exclude the possibility that a prophet lay at the origins of Christianity, yet one with little in common with Jesus of Nazareth. Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association, with degrees in German, Philosophy, and natural science.

1999 • (Semi-myth) ALVAR ELLEGARD. Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study In Creative Mythology. Ellegard argues that Jesus is to be identified with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness and actually lived a century before the common era, during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus.

2008 • (Semi-Myth) RENÉ SALM. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. Presents an exhaustive review of the primary archaeological evidence from the Nazareth basin and concludes that the town came into existence between the two Jewish revolts. Salm received undergraduate degrees in Music and German, and was active as a composer and keyboardist for a number of years. Interest in religion began in early adulthood and led to independent study of Buddhism and then Christianity, including occasional post-graduate coursework. Salm considers himself an Atheist, a Buddhist, and (in an ethical rather than doctrinal sense) a Christian. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and maintains several websites. He is pursuaded that Jesus of Nazareth is a pure invention as regards all biographical particulars, but suspects that a prophet may have lived several generations before the turn of the era, one who inspired the gnostic religion known as Mandeism and (though considerable perversion) Pauline Christianity.

69.197.181.194 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC) & update 15:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)