User:Dbz

Essay
Essay:Critics of the historicity of Jesus
 * RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Critics_of_the_historicity_of_Jesus
 * RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_2021

General Info
A simple Litmus test (politics) to weed out potentially biased non-secular scholars is to ask the following: Do these scholars have an on-the-record position, in clear and unambiguous language, without equivocation for the “Historicity of the Mosaic authorship of the Torah” and the “Historicity of the resurrection of Jesus?

Additionally the following questions should be presented to any secular or non-secular “Defender of the Historicity of Jesus”: •What is the “minimal theory of historicity” that they hold? (And then compare it with Carrier’s rigorous and robust “minimal theory of historicity” •Do they denounce the scholars and the enablers that are party to the systemic censorship of free thought found within religiously affiliated institutions?

Certain types of scholarly results bring in more funding and prestige which in turn promotes certain types of scholarly results in an endless reinforcement cycle

I concur with R. M. Price that the dying and rising god thing does not significantly reflect on mythicism verses historicism.

• "Robert M. Price &amp; Christopher Hansen - INTERVIEW!". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 2019. [01:46:30] Ultimately I don't think the dying and rising god thing, though fascinating, really bears on mythicism, because Rudolf Bultmann and Joseph McCabe and various others have long said there were dying and rising god myths and they were among the resources early Christians used to mythologize the historical Jesus.

Bultmann goes into all of this stuff but he thinks, there was a historical Jesus, it was just he was made over in this image as he was: with a gnostic redeemer and the Jewish Messiah. If you could prove that there were dependencies of genealogical relationship, that wouldn't really reflect on mythicism verses historicism anyway. So in a way it's like a moot point—as fascinating as it is. Cf. Godfrey, Neil (29 May 2019). "Robert Price and Christopher Hansen Discussion". Vridar.

Cook, contra Smith, asserts that "the continued use of the category of dying and rising gods" is justified.

• Cook, John Granger (2018). Empty tomb, resurrection, apotheosis. Tübingen. ISBN 978-3-16-156503-8. [§.Conclusion] The review in this chapter thoroughly justifies the continued use of the category of dying and rising gods. [468] The resurrection of Osiris is the closest analogy to the resurrection of Jesus, although Osiris remains in the netherworld—wherever it is located. Horus’s resurrection is a clear analogy. The rebirth or resurrection of Dionysus also provides a fairly close analogy to the resurrection of Jesus. The revival of Heracles and probably that of Melqart are also strong analogies. —(p. 143)

[468] pace D. Frankfurter, rev. of Mettinger, Riddle, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.09.07 who argues that the category “dying/rising god” is merely a “Christian theological holdover, like ‘sacrament’ or ‘faith,’ from a time when all comparison was meant to legitimize or delegitimize dogma.” That premise is based on an argumentum ad hominem (i.e., those intending to “legitimize/delegitimize” dogma) and so is logically fallacious. The language is unavoidable, and even J. Z. Smith succumbs (cf. the quote in § 6.1 above from Drudgery, 133): there are “second to fourth century AD reinterpretation, within some of the ‘mystery’ cults, of archaic locative traditions of dead deities in new experimental modes which appear to testify to these deities returning to life. In the case of Attis, there are only scattered hints of this process.”

Charbonnel prefers that she be identified as a proponent of the midrashic hypothesis rather than a proponent of mythicism.

• "L'hypothèse midrashique". Le Champ du Midrash (in French NOW TRANSLATED by Google Translate ). The midrashic hypothesis is fairly straightforward to formulate. Since the early Christian texts have all the characteristics of midrashic literature, are they not simply midrash?

Through the hundreds of studies and articles on this site, the answer to this question is positive and can be formulated as follows:

• The New Testament is a text of the same nature as the Jewish midrash. It is an extension of it.

• It operates permanently under the double cartel regime.

• It deals with eschatology and cannot provide a basis for any historical element.

• All of its materials are already present in the Jewish midrash.

• The many pericopes (narrative units) that make up the Gospels can be reduced to a very small number of generic pericopes. These stem pericopes deal with the entry of the pagans into the Sinai covenant and the lightening of the Law.

• Healings form the central core of the Gospels. The stories of childhood and the Passion are also midrashim.

• These healings are a metaphor for the entry of the Gentiles into the divine covenant. To heal is always to heal from idolatry.

• The theme of the lightening of the Law is an extension of internal debates within Judaism, as the midrash on Ruth attests.

• The writers of the New Testament produce their narratives according to real specifications. Their lexicon and rhetoric obey a relatively rigid code.

• Christianity was built on a univocal reading of texts with double understanding. As a result of three major translations, and the loss of the Midrashic reading key, the current reader has no way of returning to the original meaning. He is condemned to a naive and historicizing reading of the New Testament.

McAdon, Brad (2017). "Josephus and Mark". Alpha: Studies in Early Christianity. 1 : 92–93. "The author of our canonical Mark may have been influenced by several texts . . . Josephus&rsquo;s Antiquities Book 18, and the Septuagint. If so, there will be significant implications concerning the historicity of Mark&rsquo;s John the Baptist narratives, the dating of canonical Mark, and Mark&rsquo;s compositional practices."

Critics
Jesus Never Existed.


 * 1) Hermann Samuel Reimarus
 * 2) Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
 * 3) Baron d'Holbach ('Boulanger')
 * 4) Count Constantine Volney
 * 5) Edward Evanson
 * 6) Charles François Dupuis
 * 7) Thomas Paine
 * 8) Robert Taylor
 * 9) Godfrey Higgins
 * 10) David Friedrich Strauss
 * 11) Bruno Bauer
 * 12) Ralph Waldo Emerson
 * 13) Logan Mitchell
 * 14) Ferdinand Christian Baur
 * 15) Charles Bradlaugh
 * 16) Ernest Renan
 * 17) Sytze Hoekstra
 * 18) Robert Ingersoll
 * 19) Walter Cassels
 * 20) Kersey Graves
 * 21) Allard Pierson
 * 22) Bronson C. Keeler
 * 23) Abraham Dirk Loman
 * 24) Thomas William Doane
 * 25) Samuel Adrianus Naber
 * 26) Gerald Massey
 * 27) Edwin Johnson
 * 28) Rudolf Steck
 * 29) Franz Hartman
 * 30) Willem Christiaan van Manen
 * 31) Joseph McCabe
 * 32) Albert Schweitzer
 * 33) Wilhelm Wrede
 * 34) Albert Kalthoff
 * 35) George Robert Stowe Mead
 * 36) Thomas Whittaker
 * 37) Emilio Bossi/Milesbo
 * 38) William Benjamin Smith
 * 39) Gerardus Bolland
 * 40) Prosper Alfaric
 * 41) Peter Jensen
 * 42) Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian
 * 43) Karl Kautsky
 * 44) John E. Remsburg
 * 45) Arthur Drews
 * 46) John Robertson
 * 47) Edouard Dujardin
 * 48) Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga
 * 49) Alexander Hislop
 * 50) Edward Carpenter
 * 51) Rudolf Bultmann
 * 52) James Frazer
 * 53) Marshall J. Gauvin
 * 54) Paul-Louis Couchoud
 * 55) Georg Brandes
 * 56) Joseph Wheless
 * 57) Henri Delafosse
 * 58) L. Gordon Rylands
 * 59) John G. Jackson
 * 60) Alvin Boyd Kuhn
 * 61) Herbert Cutner
 * 62) Georges Las Vergnas
 * 63) Georges Ory
 * 64) Guy Fau
 * 65) John Allegro
 * 66) George Albert Wells
 * 67) Phyllis Graham
 * 68) Jean Magne
 * 69) Samuel Max Rieser
 * 70) Abelard Reuchlin
 * 71) kos Vergidis
 * 72) Karlheinz Deschner
 * 73) Hermann Detering
 * 74) Gary Courtney
 * 75) Michael Kalopoulos
 * 76) Gerd Lüdemann
 * 77) Alvar Ellegard,
 * 78) D. Murdock (aka 'Acharya S')
 * 79) Earl Doherty
 * 80) Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
 * 81) Harold Liedner
 * 82) Robert Price
 * 83) Hal Childs
 * 84) Michael Hoffman
 * 85) Dennis MacDonald
 * 86) Burton Mack
 * 87) Luigi Cascioli
 * 88) Israel Finkelstein
 * 89) Neil Silbermann
 * 90) Frank R. Zindler
 * 91) Daniel Unterbrink,
 * 92) Tom Harpur
 * 93) Francesco Carotta]
 * 94) Joseph Atwill
 * 95) Michel Onfray
 * 96) Kenneth Humphreys
 * 97) Jay Raskin
 * 98) Thomas L. Thompson
 * 99) Jan Irvin
 * 100) Andrew Rutajit
 * 101) Lena Einhorn
 * 102) Roger Viklund
 * 103) René Salm
 * 104) David Fitzgerald
 * 105) Thomas Brodie
 * 106) Richard Carrier
 * 107) Raphael Lataster
 * 108) Michael Paulkovich
 * 109) Sid Martin,
 * 110) Minas Papageorgiou

Mythicist Papers

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/timeline-of-jesus-mythicism/


 * (Trad) = Traditionalist. Endorses the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
 * (Gen) = Generalist whose work influenced the wider culture in a skeptical direction.
 * (Skep) = Skeptical of the orthodox position regarding Jesus of Nazareth but not avowedly mythicist nor semi-mythicist.
 * (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.
 * (Myth) = Mythicist. Endorses the non-existence of any founding prophet at the origin of Christianity.


 * 1) (Skep) BARUCH SPINOZA
 * 2) (Skep) BARON d’HOLBACH
 * 3) (Skep) HERMANN SAMUEL REIMARUS
 * 4) (Semi-Myth) COMPTE DE VOLNEY
 * 5) (Myth) CHARLES-FRANÇOIS DUPUIS
 * 6) (Skep) DAVID F. STRAUSS
 * 7) (Skep) FERDINAND C. BAUR
 * 8) (Myth) BRUNO BAUER
 * 9) (Skep) LUDWIG FEUERBACH
 * 10) (Skep) KARL MARX
 * 11) (Gen) CHWOLSOHN, DANIIL
 * 12) (Skep) ERNEST RENAN
 * 13) (Skep) DANIEL SCHENKEL
 * 14) (Semi-myth) SYTZE HOEKSTRA
 * 15) (Myth) ALLARD PIERSON
 * 16) (Semi-Myth) ABRAHAM DIRK LOMAN
 * 17) (Myth) E. JOHNSON
 * 18) (Myth) RUDOLF STECK
 * 19) (Skep) WILLEM CHRISTIAAN VAN MANEN
 * 20) (Myth) JOHN M. ROBERTSON
 * 21) (Skep) ADOLF VON HARNACK
 * 22) (Skep) W. WREDE
 * 23) (Skep) ALBERT KALTHOFF
 * 24) (Gen) DITLEF NIELSEN
 * 25) (Skep) ALBERT SCHWEITZER
 * 26) (Myth) WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH
 * 27) (Skep) ALFRED FIRMIN LOISY
 * 28) (Myth) CHRISTIAN HEINRICH ARTHUR DREWS
 * 29) (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA
 * 30) (Skep) M. M. MANGASARIAN
 * 31) (Myth) SALOMON REINACHChrist
 * 32) (Myth) SAMUEL LUBLINSKI
 * 33) (Myth) ARTHUR HEULHARD
 * 34) (Trad) SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE
 * 35) (Semi-Myth) FREDERICK C. CONYBEARE
 * 36) (Myth) PAUL-LOUIS COUCHOUD
 * 37) (Skep) MAURICE GOGUEL
 * 38) (Skep) JOSEPH TURMEL
 * 39) (Trad) HENRY J. CADBURY,
 * 40) (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA
 * 41) (Semi-myth) DANIEL MASSÉ
 * 42) (Myth) PROSPER ALFARIC
 * 43) (Skep) CHARLES GUIGNEBERT
 * 44) (Myth) ÉDOUARD DUJARDIN
 * 45) (Myth) ALVIN BOYD KUHN
 * 46) (Skep) ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON
 * 47) (Trad) C. H. DODD
 * 48) (Semi-Myth) JOHN MARCO ALLEGRO
 * 49) (Myth) GEORGES ORY
 * 50) (Trad) J. M. ROBINSON and H. KOESTER
 * 51) (Trad) RUDOLF BULTMANN
 * 52) (Skep) THOMAS L. THOMPSON
 * 53) (Semi-Myth) GEORGE A. WELLS
 * 54) (Trad) KURT RUDOLPH
 * 55) (Skep) THEODORE WEEDEN
 * 56) (Skep) R. JOSEPH HOFFMANN
 * 57) (Trad) ROBERT FUNK
 * 58) (Trad) PETER BROWN
 * 59) (Skep) RANDEL HELMS
 * 60) (Skep) ROBERT EISENMAN
 * 61) (Skep) BURTON MACK
 * 62) (Myth) EARL DOHERTY
 * 63) (Semi-myth) ALVAR ELLEGARD
 * 64) (Myth) T. FREKE and P. GANDY
 * 65) (Skep) GERD LÜDEMANN
 * 66) (Myth) ROBERT M. PRICE
 * 67) (Myth) FRANK ZINDLER
 * 68) (Myth) TOM HARPUR
 * 69) (Semi-Myth) RENÉ SALM
 * 70) (Myth) RICHARD CARRIER
 * 71) (Trad) BART D. EHRMAN
 * 72) (Myth) THOMAS BRODIE

Christ references in Mark
• You are the Christ” (Peter in 8:29). • “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’And Jesus said, ‘I am...’” (14:61) • “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross that we may see and believe” (15:32)
 * Peter’s Confession (8:29) — Mark begins the Gospel calling Jesus “the Christ” or “the Anointed One” or “the Messiah” but it would take Peter eight whole chapters to figure this out himself (8:29).
 * High Priest & Jesus (14:61) — asks Jesus at his trial whether he is the Christ. Jesus says “I am” and then proceeds to tell about his second coming.
 * Mockers (15:32) — at the crucifixion scene, several bystanders who will mock Jesus use his Christological Titles but don’t really mean it.

Pre-Christian Greek Christ references
(1732–1780) was an English classical scholar and physician. His 1778 edition of Euripides was considered an advance on the 1694 work of Joshua Barnes. Musgrave's edition was the most methodical and accomplished complete edition of Euripides (and fragments) yet published anywhere. Cf. Euripides, Quae extant omnia, Oxford, 1778, 4 volumes.

Musgrave gives a variant spelling of 501 μυρόχριστος (myróchristos) in the sense of "anointed". Other editors give μυρόχριστον (myróchriston). Cf:

Middle Platonism
• "Scholars sometimes object to the term ‘Middle Platonism’ as being rather loosely defined. The term is used to cover the period between the Old Academy and Plotinus, but Platonists of this period do not conform to a single category. This period has failed to generate much academic interest…" • "Most of what we know about Hellenistic Judaism is drawn from Philo (some from Josephus), his writings supplying valuable data for the philosophical eclecticism of Platonist, Stoic, and Pythagorean elements known as Middle Platonism…"

Jesus’ place of origin v. Jesus the Nazarene
In Mk 1.9 the term is used to describe Jesus’ place of origin. Mar 1:9 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ G3478 τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην

In 1.24 Jesus is addressed as the Nazarene by an unclean spirit. Mar 1:24 λέγων, Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; G3479 ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ

The servant of the high priest accuses Peter of association with the Nazarene (14.67). Mar 14:67 καὶ ἰδοῦσα τὸν Πέτρον θερμαινόμενον ἐμβλέψασα αὐτῷ λέγει Καὶ σὺ μετὰ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ G3479 Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα

The messenger at the tomb refers to Jesus as the Nazarene (16.6). Mar 16:6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν G3479 τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν

Bartimaeus hears in 10.47 that Jesus the Nazarene is passing by. Mar 10:47 καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος G3480 ἐστιν ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν ὁ ὑιὸς Δαβὶδ Ἰησοῦ ἐλέησόν με

Galilee and Perea
Both were Incorporated into "Greater Judea" i.e. Provincia Ivdaea, in 44 CE, which already incorporated the regions of Samaria, Idumea, and the eponymous Judea. The regional name Perea is used by Josephus (c. 75 CE) and Pliny the Elder (c. 75 CE) in their geographic descriptions of the regions within the province.

The Markan author shows a great awareness and interest in the Graeco-Roman city territories surrounding Galilee: Gerasa (Mk 5.1); Tyre and Sidon (7.24-31); Caesarea Philippi (8.27) and the Decapolis (5.20; 7.31), and has Jesus himself traveling into these areas.

In the Markan story, geography demarcates Jew from Gentile. While at the Gallilee region, Jesus receives Gentiles from the surrounding regions—one of which is Transjordan (Mark 3:8). The Markan author names the Transjordan region by using the same term found in the LXX Book of Isaiah—péran toú Iordánou; not Perea. Notably the Markan author never uses the specific contemporary name for the east bank territory of Herod Antipas, i.e. Perea. The LXX Book of Isaiah term for the Transjordan region is repeated in Mark 10:1, therefore the traditional view of the Perean ministry, which holds that Jesus did not travel beyond the Perean territorial region of Herod Antipas is not supported by the Markan text. It appears that the usage of the term Transjordan in Mark 10:1 is a reference to the Decapolis and other Gentile regions such that Jesus—enroute to Jerusalem—is teaching both Jews and Gentiles per the same literary East/West axis presented previously for the Sea of Galilee ministry.

• Isaiah 9:1 (LXX 8:23) ". . . πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας [péran toú Iordánou Galilaía tón ethnón tá méri tís Ioudaías ('beyond the Jordan i.e. Transjordan', 'Galilee of the nations', and districts of Judaea)]"

• Mark 3:8 . . . πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ περὶ Τύρον καὶ Σιδῶνα [péran toú Iordánou kaí perí Týron kaí Sidóna ("beyond the Jordan i.e. Transjordan" and around Tyre and Sidon)]

I have argued elsewhere that the east-west axis is far more central to the [Markan] narrative than the north-south axis. The hypothesis that Galilee might be terra Christiana should not overshadow what is more obvious, namely, the importance of the western and eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee. In a few words, the Sea of Galilee is even more important than the soil of Galilee. [Svartvik 2014, p. 178.] • Svartvik, Jesper (2014). "“East is East and West is West:” The Concept of Torah in Paul and Mark". In Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim, and Ian J. Elmer. Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays Part I. Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity. BZNW 198. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 157–188. ISBN 978-3-11-027282-6.

Religious syncretism
The Markan text was written at least forty years after the Christian religion began (then an average human lifetime), and thus was responding to recent events (the destruction of Jerusalem). We can not explain the origins of Christianity by appealing to the Markan text or to the author's motives; The Markan text is a latecomer that was responding to profound changes in the religion and its circumstances. The religion itself began long before it was known that the Romans would actually destroy Jerusalem (early Christian thinking was then more in line with Daniel, which never mentions this, but only the temple’s “desecration,” after which God and his angels would destroy everything).

"God and his angels would destroy everything"

"Everything" .. meaning the entire Earth would be covered by lava, etc.

nomina sacra
Metzger, Bruce M. (17 September 1981). Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-536532-0. In the developed Byzantine usage the fifteen nomina sacra in their nominative and genitive forms are as follows: [...] Scholars differ in accounting for the origin and development of the system of nomina sacra.

If the term δημιουργός (dēmiourgós) provided by Plato in Timaeus 29a in cultic slang jargon became shortened to ιουργός (ΙΟΥΡΓΌΣ) then it may be source for the nomina sacra ΙΣ, i.e. Jesus/ιησοῦς (ΙΗΣΟΥ͂Σ).