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#September_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.

• <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://youtu.be/PSJ64C7dk0k?t=6390">"Robert M. Price & Christopher Hansen - INTERVIEW!"</a>. 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.

• <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.lechampdumidrash.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:l-hypothese-midrashique&catid=85&Itemid=485">"L'hypothèse midrashique"</a>. 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’s Antiquities Book 18, and the Septuagint. If so, there will be significant implications concerning the historicity of Mark’s John the Baptist narratives, the dating of canonical Mark, and Mark’s compositional practices."

Critics

"The End is Nigh – for Jesus, that is".  Jesus Never Existed.

Critics mentioned – 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

"A MYTHICISM TIMELINE".  Mythicist Papers

Critics mentioned – 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).

• 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).

• “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’And Jesus said, ‘I am...’” (14:61)

• 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.

• “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross that we may see and believe” (15:32)

• 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

Samuel Musgrave (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:

• Musgrave, Samuel, ed (1778). "Cyclops" (in Greek). ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ (Euripidou ta sozomena - Euripides the saved) | Euripides, Quae extant omnia (All things extant). England: OUP|Clarendon Press. p. 3:80. 
• Donnegan, James (1842). A New Greek and English Lexicon; principally on the plan of the Greek and German Lexicon of Schneider, etc. p. 1070. "Image of p. 1070 at Google Books." 
• Hunter, Richard; Laemmle, Rebecca, eds (2020) (in en). Euripides: Cyclops. Cambridge University Press. p. 490. ISBN 978-1-108-24565-4. 

Middle Platonism

• Gaston, Thomas E. (July 2009). "The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists". The Heythrop Journal 50 (4): 573–580. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00448.x. 

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…

• Williams, D. H. (December 2016). "The Career of the Lógos: A Brief Biography" (in en). pp. 209–219. doi:10.3390/philosophies1030209. 

• Williams, D. (29 October 2016). "The Career of the Lógos: A Brief Biography". Philosophies 1 (3): 209–219. doi:10.3390/philosophies1030209. 

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…

Markan geography

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). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Manuscripts_of_the_Greek_Bible/Z35H7PQDQ1oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA36&printsec=frontcover">Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography</a>. 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).