RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Talk:Jesus myth theory/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, (new)(back)

The wizard of OZ stuff is not in keeping with the tone and quality of the rest of the article. I think it should be clipped. --DamoHi 06:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position, but disagree. It uses hyperbole to illustrate the faulty logic and reasoning behind arguments for using the Bible as the sole source of Jesus's existence and the lengths apologists have to go in order to make it work. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that it is trying to illustrate the example with hyperbole. I just don't think it works. In fact I think the whole thing falls flat. --DamoHi 07:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that was the author's intent. The Wizard of Oz analogy falls just as flat as the Jesus myth when analyzed in a similar way. That's just my take, though. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've got to say that I don't find it very convincing. On the other hand I've never read "The Wizard of OZ" so I don't understand the references. --BobSpring is sprung! 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Obscure references to the Wizard of Oz never help anything. ADK...I'll run your tofu! 19:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The wizard of oz was INTENDED to be fiction. you cannot compare it to something that was intended to be historical. If you find a writing about Buddha, or a writing on or about David Karesh (sp) you'd have a point. but comparing a novel with a work that is intended to be at worst philosophy, and at best, literal history (from the perspective of Jesus is real) is simply not a valid argument. When we find professional biographies, diaries, and amature "my life story" of unknown people we do not assume they are fiction, rather we FIRST assume they are real, until or unless we have reason to believe otherwise. The same is true for ANY religious text. we have statements of faith saying "my leader's name is George". there is no reason to doubt that, cause few people lie about who their leader was. They may or may not lie about what that leader did. I say, find a better analogy.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I find it an amusing way to highlight some of the techniques of apologetics. Although that's it, you're right about it not being an argument in itself because you're comparing something intended to be fictional with something intended to be non-fictional. However, I think the point is that intention to be non-fiction doesn't make it non-fiction. So your point is really a variant on presuppositionalism; if we presume Jesus was real, we find no reason to doubt it while if we presume Jesus is entire fictional we find no reason to believe it. Personally, I'm kinda torn and in the middle. I see no reason to presume that a bunch of authors got together and decided to co-ordinate and develop this "jesus character" just out of whole cloth (that's very conspiracy theory like thinking, IMHO) but at the same time I have little intention of taking the Bible as evidence that the Bible is historical or even vaguely accurate. The simple fact is that we lack any corroborating evidence to suggest that it is an accurate documentary of Jesus' life and very existence, so we're left with the thought that people getting together just to make it up out of nowhere is as far fetched as the actual Bible itself. ADK...I'll pander your dog! 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
While it's true we lack corroborative evidence, that's more an issue of "level of confidence" than an issue of "not happened". Again, virtually everything in history - from the writings on egpytian walls, to obscure greek philosophiers lacks "corroborative evidence". Luckily, that's not the only thing historians trust. They look at the history of similar writings (were Egyptian kings famous for exaggerations? Did Jewish religious types typically invent events to prove their prophecies were coming true? etc. ) History is an attempt to figure out what happens, from the scraps you have. There are some 30-50 known prophets and reformers (like Jesus) running around for the 200 years before and after Jesus. The time was unsettling for the Jewish religion. Most of them had churches that popped up under their name, and popped out of existence in 10 or 20 years, when "nothing changed". I personally think, the only reason Xianity and Jesus became anything other than one more of them, who none of us would be here debating, cuase there would be no reason to deny he had a small group of followers - is paul. Paul has a separate, distinct, political, non jewish theology - and he needed someone to hang it on. he needed a jewish guy to be *the* messiah, and happened upon this story of one dumb jewish dude who pissed off the wrong people and was killed. Had there been no paul, jesus and maybe even Luke/Acts would have gone down in history and we would have found it, and said "oh, another babtist, another holy dude".
The thing about what to compare the jesus stories with, I do think there is a very valid reason to compare them to things like Zeus or the Aztec myths. We all see those as "myths", as stories about things that never happened. And even if there was a hint of truth (which probably, in every story, myth or tall tale, there's a speck of truth) in them - look at what they become. I think no one would go on a quest to prove the son of Quzuqutal existed. OR try to show that the Virgin Birth of both Horus and Dyonisis existed. That is the analogy, I think. Religious stories that are myth.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 13:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree entirely that it's a "level of confidence" question rather than a black and white "no additional evidence = total bullshit". Though when comparing them to other religious stories, specifically the pantheons of Zeus and Odin, I think we need to look at the "intention" also; were these documents intended to be fictional or historical or allegorical? Certainly the overlap between gods and mortals in Greek mythology is a little blurred, as if they're taking events that may be historical and writing historical fiction about them where the gods take an active and narrative role. The Trojan war being the archetypical example of it as the Greeks recording it were very much under the impression it was historically factual. ADK...I'll exorcise your chiffon! 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's kinda the exact thing that was ruminating in my head. I remember in the 80's in my undergrad courses, I had a class that suggested things the "the amazon" were likely factual, as well as Atlantis, etc., because other things Herodotus had mentioned --other "far out" things-- turned out to be sorta factual. I never followed up on it, so I don't even know if this prof was talking out of her tush, but I think the fine blending of "some fact" with "lots of revision to make those facts fit our holy books, and other revisions to make those facts be god like" is probably the foundation of most religious myths/viewpoints. --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a piece on Sherlock Holmes makes more sense and is in better keeping with what apologists are trying to do:

Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fit Watson's often refereed to war wound.

Fact 2: Baker Street existed: Maps of 1881-1914 London show that Baker Street really existed.

Fact 3: Preserving confidentiality: Since Holmes depended on confidentiality in many of his cases one would expect Watson to disguise the names of the people involved and even dates to preserve this confidentiality which he does to the point of having Holmes visit public places on Sunday (impossible for the time period)

Fact 4: Every genuine case has a date: William S. Baring-Gould's 1968 Annotated Sherlock Holmes shows that if you do enough research a real date for every "genuine" (there are a few that are said to be fiction) case can be found.

Fact 5: The correspondence: In 1932 the Abbey National Building Society moved to 219–229 Baker Street... and had to employ a full time secretary whose only job was to answer letters addressed to Sherlock Holmes.

People wouldn't send letters to a fictional character, we have proof John H. Watson and Baker Street existed, and we can explain any discrepancies in the cases...therefore Sherlock Holmes must have really existed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Both analogies are useless for all the reasons outlined above. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy?[edit]

We already have a Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article where a good hunk of "The usual "contemporary proofs"" section could reside and is to some degree duplicated. I think we should go with summations and reference to that article rather than the repeating we currently have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If presented correctly, they are actually very different things (though if you've read the current "evidence" page, you'll see i'm not a fan of that page). one is the very "positive" statement that "jesus is a myth", without acknowledging the views of historians, or claiming those views are compromised. The other is the actual physical evidence about Jesus, the 2nd and 3rd level evidence about jesus that Historians rely on. (There is not much, but despite our article that says otherwise, historians do say there is some.) Anyhow, they are different issues.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem as pointed out in the article itself is that "jesus is a myth" has many different meanings even if you hold to the historical myth side of things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Dump the article then.  ;-) I think they CAN be made distint. I think "evidence of jesus" could be focused to really talk about the evidence, and not the evaluation of the evidence, adn this article could talk about academic people (Price, for one) who really posit the idea that jesus is, pragmatically, a myth - regardless of his reality or not. I think, for me, that is the difference. Price states (as this article seems to imply) that real or not, the STORY is so fucking overwheming anything "real" that the existance of jesus is fully irrelevant. just an idea. --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 03:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is you can't really talk about the evidence without evaluating it because that is part of the evidence. It is akin to the "evidence" used regarding the Bermuda Triangle which I think David Kusche summed up so well: "Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."
As late at 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10 (1919) edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray). Try making that statement today and see how well it goes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that there is certainly considerable overlap between the two articles. But I would also maintain that they are two different subjects. Another point is that this one seems over-long. Ideally it should be split up in some way.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. It's a bit too long. The 'notable advocates' section is just filler from when this article was almost a stub. It seems like a waste of space now. Would anyone object to its removal? --Danfly (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree as many of these people are handled better on the general wikipedia article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The "historians" in question are "biblical historians", who are considered jokes by actual historians. Looks like it's time to add another 30KB to the other article - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read[edit]

Is This Not the Carpenter and the related book for some excellent scholarship on this question Scherben (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As the article points out we now have Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2, "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review" and there are some interesting details in that work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesus and King Arthur[edit]

A comparison could be made between Jesus and Arthur (quite apart from the Holy Grail and Glastonbury connections).

A time of turmoil and an incoming new power (Judea - the Romans, Britannia - Hengist and Horsa etc).

Central figures to whom much myth/other non-factual material has become attached.

It is generally agreed that 'King Arthur' is based on an 'actual historical person or persons.' (The stories having become amalgamated - and probably including local leaders, a Roman legionary or officer, and a leader of a British warband (whether or not riding black horses).) This would explain why there are so many 'real Arthurs' - like the elephant all the reports are true in part.

The historical person(s) upon Jesus-of-the-Gospels was based included a rabbi (of much learning) and 'an opponent of the present rulers' (with Judas Iscariot the Siccari being connected with the latter).

The stories are written up considerably after the event (having been retold many times) - there are distortions arising and material is selected which is seen as relevant rather than 'all that there is' - with different groups selecting different material (hence the Gospels diverge).

Can the comparison be taken further? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Both analogies are useless for all the reasons outlined above. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP editor states It is generally agreed that 'King Arthur' is based on an 'actual historical person or persons'. This is news to me and, apparently, to wikipedia. But I suspect the the existence of some human non-magical form of Christ is marginally more probable than a King Arthur. Wouldn't bet on either of them though.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

John Frum cargo cult[edit]

I'm not sure that the fourth paragraph (John Frum cargo cult) belongs in the introduction. To be honest I'm, not entirely clear on what it's saying.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've cut it. It's below for posterity.
    • The John Frum cargo cult shows that the cult version (literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, 1931) and historical version (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name in 1941 and was exiled from the island as a result) of religion's "founder" can become effectively two different people in as short as 17 years. <ref>Worsley, Peter (1957) ''The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia'' London: Macgibbon & Kee pp. 153–9.</ref><ref>Lal, Brij V.; Kate Fortune (2000) ''The Pacific Islands: an encyclopedia''; University of Hawaii Press; ISBN: 978-0824822651; Pg 303</ref>''
in case anybody wants to put it back in.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

literate white US serviceman[edit]

I doubt any US serviceman would be much more "literate" than knowing an alphabet. They could hardly write, all they could do was to transcribe their speach into an alphabet. Perhaps they had learned how former English dialects were written, but that's irrelevant when writing to people with unrelated languages, often even more harmfull to understanding. The assumption that only "white US serviceman" [sic] were "literate" says more about rationalwiki.org than about others. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes the soldiers of cargo cults were almost certainly literate. Native-born(not to be confused with native) Americans from the 1940s had a 97% literacy rate. The people of cargo cults were, by and large, not literate. Melanesian Cargo cults also responded to Japanese cargo deliveries, but those were not documented to the same extent Frum's observations were. The point was the relatively short time span religions can crop up. Please try to understand what you're responding to, as you seem to have locked onto the term "white" and "literate" as implicitly racist, without event attempting an understanding the statement being made. Ikanreed (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Even spelling "men" (as the plural of "man") seems too hard for fans of "white US serviceman". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, pal, that's called a typo. It happens. Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I wrote '"white US serviceman" [sic]"'. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
And it isn't a typo: http://www.goodtyping.com/teclatUS.htm --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Singular "serviceman" (just one of him) is what it says. Why do you think it should be plural? Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The absence of "a" or "the" before "(literate white US serviceman". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"John Frum was a literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders..." has it. The other places don't need it. ("John Frum's identity varied from Melanesian native, to black serviceman, to white navy serviceman" and one similar time in the intro.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In "([literate white] US serviceman that appeared", we need "a serviceman", "the serviceman", "the servicemen", (some of the) "servicemen", or "Serviceman" (if you insist on the existance of the "Literate White US Serviceman", but that requires more edits, and the denial of "literate white US servicemen" besides the alleged John Frum). ~~----
It is a parallel construction to "(illiterate native named Manehivi..." One could say that both of those instances need an "i.e." in the parenthetical phrase, but the text is understandable without that, too. Fiddly grammatical details aside, I think you are reading prejudice into the text where there isn't any. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BoN edits[edit]

Anyone know enough to confirm/deny these edits? Scream!! (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering about "suggested"->"proved" re: Tacitus - Bruce? - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It was proved in 2008 via ultraviolet light, that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful", rather than strictly a follower of "Christ".
As for the Paul thing that is confirmed by Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 515. The changes are therefore unjustified and I have restored them back with the added references.
Carrier goes over the dates of the Gospels noting them as "arbitrary ballpark figures with don't really have much basis in facts." He puts Mark 70-80 because it seems to relate to the Jewish war of 70 CE, he goes with 80s to 90 for Matthew just to "err on the side of the earliest likely period, and for no other reason", Luke Acts gets a 90s-120s range and John clocks in as being possibly as late as the 140s. (OHJ 266-70)--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with trend in Old Testament research[edit]

It may be worth mentioning how in OT research (even outside Genesis), the trend to doubt or outright dismiss the historicity of people (especially the patriarchs), events (such as the Exodus), kingdoms, tribes and settlements has been virulent for quite some time and become mainstream indeed, even though the historicity of a towering figure such as King David is not considered decisively refuted (yet?). But the overall tendency in academia – as opposed to the general public – to consider the scriptures more myth than history is quite evident, and strikingly parallels developments in NT research, except that that field is still more resistant to questioning the historicity of its central figure, of course. Compare w:The Bible Unearthed. (I bet the name "Finkelstein" is not particularly popular in Israel these days.) If questioning Abraham's or David's existence is acceptable, why should questioning Jesus' existence be anathema or ridiculous, on the face of it? In the light of OT scholarship, and his own contributions to NT scholarship, Ehrman's knee-jerk dismissive attitude to HJ scepticism is all the more puzzling; sceptics have all kinds of well-grounded reasons to scrutinise the alleged evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus very, very closely. The same goes for others who like to ridiculise mythicists and paint them as hypersceptical, or even everyone who does not take the historicity of Jesus for granted, likening them to truthers or birthers (a denunciation which some historicity sceptics have appropriated with the "Jesus birther" movement). Also, the point that similar academic developments to Jesus mythicism are taking a lot of time to filter through to the general public is worth underlining: what sounds radical or ridiculous to the average Joe (e. g.: "gender is a social construct, and what is considered 'masculine' or 'feminine' is everything but fixed") can be well-established in academia sometimes. Appeals to "common sense" are to be distrusted. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would the real Historical Jesus please stand up?[edit]

I think it's also worth noting that the distinction between minimalism (Jesus existed but that's about as much as we can say; called here "reductive"), "compositism" (Jesus is based on a composite of various historical existing personalities – some of which we know of through Josephus, for example) and mythicism is rather subtle. Once you get somebody to admit that what is certain about Jesus is extremely little, I think it's easy to argue that this solid core is so tiny that the historical figure supposedly at the basis turns out to be unrecoverably generic; if there were so many itinerant Jewish miracle-working apocalyptic preachers and cult leaders in 1st century Judaea, who claimed to be the messiah, incited failed rebellions and were severely punished by the Romans or Jews (or had at least broadly similar biographies), and if the name Jesus was this common, which is essentially the rationale for "compositism", you could also argue that the figure of Jesus was based on a generic type rather than a single, identifiable person. That is, even if you had a time machine and could travel back to the place and time in question, you would have a hard time trying to determine which of the many confusingly similar candidates should be the "real" Jesus. The problem of the Historical Jesus then ironically turns out to be not that there is none, but that there are too many of them! And that's a problem the HJ research has to grapple with already, it's not an invention of ebil hypersceptics. I see now this point is also made in Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ already. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)