"If you don't believe there was a Jesus, you are stupid" (2 Viewers)

[SystemShock]

Sometime ago, on a discussion on the Mother Board, a poster stated that even if you don't accept the the miracles and other extraordinary claims, if you don't believe a Jesus existed, you are stupid. It's always nice to be insulted.

That's a comment that I have heard before, though, as if the existence of some religious leader named Y'shua would validate anything that's said of Jesus in the Bible.

I don't doubt (I think it's more than likely, actually) that there were religious leaders (plural) around that time who made wild claims about god (or gods) and who spoke against the Roman occupation of Palestine, and who probably met their deaths on a crucifix for speaking against the Roman empire; heck, it could very well be that one of them was named Y'shua... who knows.

But, in the great scheme of things, a run-of-the-mill religious leader is irrelevant, because the Christian claim is not of some mundane religious leader speaking against the Roman empire, but of a very specific persona, with a very specific background, who's given very specific ordinary and extraordinary attributes, and without the background and extrardinary attributes, there is no Christianity.

The Jesus persona very much seems to be an amalgamation of many other deities before him, such as (going by memory here, hopefully I get them all right):
Krishna (who himself seems and amalgamation of other deities - virgin mother
Ishtar - crucified
Prometheus - sacrificed himself for mankind
Horus - resurrected
Dionysius - wine miracles
Asclepius - curing the sick
Orion - walking on water

Seems that, whoever created the Jesus character, went around picking attributes from Roman, Greek, Hindu, Zoroaastrian, and Egyptian deities.

You can point this out to the people who call you stupid for not believing that the Jesus of the Bible existed, and they'll still call you stupid for not believing.

 

[Booker]

Very well. I see echoes of both in your work. No shame in that. They are the thought-leaders, and those of us who do not read Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. must rely on them somewhat.

I am a big Ehrman fan - books and podcast.

I appreciate Carrier as amusing and thought-provoking but I think he takes it too far. And he refers to "my peer reviewed book" too often.

It seems that you are on the Carrier side. What do you think about the fact/allegation that Paul is an eyewitness to a living breathing James? and James would know whether he had a brother named Jesus who got crucified. Supported by Josephus.
- Carrier response: he meant "spiritual brother"
- Ehrman reply: see Galatians 1:18-19 ("Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." So it would be redundant if it were only spiritual brother.
- Carrier retort: Ehrman is getting the Greek grammar wrong.
And I don't know Greek so WTH.

Yep, and I also don't read those languages, so it make us dependent upon those that do.

I think Ehrman's Forged is a great read, but in regard to Jesus he loses me with his reliance upon "hypothetical sources," including Q and the (completely unsupported in my view) idea that each of the Gospel writers had a source.

Regarding Q, I think Mark Goodacre's book completely shreds that hypothesis, and regarding Gospel sources, they don't claim or cite any, but you can see that they were using scripture as a source, and it's proven that the later Gospel authors were using Mark as a source. What it looks like to me is that Mark wrote an allegorical myth, and the later authors "improved" it for their audiences.

That said, I don't think it's impossible that there was a man that the myth was attached to. There's evidence via Philo that there were ideas circulating at the time about a "son of God" who was teased out of scripture, but it's not out of the question that there was a charismatic preacher who was seen as having been unjustly executed and whose followers then linked to this secret scriptural figure, either before or after they believed they were receiving visions from him (which is pretty much the mainstream paradigm).

But I see it as one of those Occam's Razor things, where on the one hand they only had to conceive of this figure, as opposed to needing both to conceive of the figure while also finding an avatar to attach the figure to. It's simpler, cleaner without a fallible human to attach it too. Likewise, if you strip away the supernatural or historically unlikely/impossible elements from the Gospels, you're not really left with much of anything to help understand why this man would have been equated with "the image of God, God's agent of Creation, an angel of God, God's humble equal," etc.

Good question regarding the James passages in Josephus and Gallatians. This is my take.

Regarding Josephus, I think it's an interpolation or at least a misidentification. The gist of the passage is:

• There was a high priest named Ananus who had a son also named Ananus who was also a high priest.
• Ananus, Jr. had "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," unlawfully executed.
• In retribution, Ananus Jr. was stripped of his priesthood and Jesus, son of Damneus was named high priest.

Contextually, Josephus isn't relating a story about Christians being executed, he's relating a story of the succession of the high priests. Logically it therefore makes sense that the Jesus who was the brother of the executed James was in fact Jesus son of Damneus, who was then elevated to the priesthood to rectify the injustice, and at some point "who was called Christ" was likely added to the text (such as a marginal scribal identifier that was later written into the passage).

Also plausible is that Jesus son of Damneus could simply have been called "anointed" (i.e. christon -- same word), in which case it could be an authentic description that was later misidentified with the Christian Jesus.

But beyond that, there is evidence of Luke being dependent upon Josephus, as Luke references "pretenders" (Judas of Gallillee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges) that are also documented in Josephus. What seems to give it away that he's using Josephus is that he lists them in the same order that Josephus does, but mistakenly states that's the chronological order they appeared in, whereas the order provided by Josephus is actually non-chronological.

As the author of Luke is also considered the author of Acts, if Luke was using Josephus to color his Gospel, and Josephus documented a clear case of Christian martyrdom, then wouldn't Luke want to include that in Acts? Right? But that story doesn't appear in Acts -- the only James mentioned in Acts is killed by the sword. It's not until Hippolytus, writing in the early third century, who tells of a Christian James who was stoned, and his source may very well have been that passage from Josephus.

Again, I think it just makes more sense that the Jesus who was James' brother was the one who was elevated to the high priest.

Regarding the passage in Galatians, I do think it's noteworthy that James is not described as "the brother of Jesus" but as "the brother of the Lord," which makes it at least ambiguous as to whether he's speaking of a "biological" as opposed to "cultic" brother.

Also, in context Paul is saying in that passage that his gospel comes straight from Jesus, not from any man, and that only after preaching for three years did he meet Cephas, but "none of the other apostles -- only James, the brother of the Lord." So Paul seems to fail to show any deference to this James.

Paul likewise never makes a distinction between why James should be seen as an earthly biological brother of Jesus, as opposed to a cultic brother, as he at
other times references "brothers and sisters" in the faith, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 he specifically references other "brothers of the Lord":

• " Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

Note that Paul here distinguishes "brothers of the Lord" as being distinct from "apostles," just as he distinguishes "James, the brother of the Lord" from the "other apostles" in the Galatians passage.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 9:1 he identifies himself as an apostle by being one who has seen the lord ("Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"), so the distinction seems to be apostles are those who have communed with the heavenly Jesus while "brothers and sisters of the Lord" are simply cult members who have adopted the faith.

See also Romans, where the faithful are adopted children of God, and therefore brothers and sisters of Jesus:

• Romans 8:14-17 "For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory."
• Romans 8:28-29 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

So Paul speaks of the faithful as being "brothers and sisters" of the Lord, and he never distinguishes James (or anyone else) as being a biological brother of Jesus as opposed to a cultic brother. That, along with his apparently dismissive attitude toward the James he references, suggests to me that he means "brother of the Lord" in a cultic sense.

 

[Booker]

Circling back on SystemShock's original post, to say that this is a slam dunk and one would be stupid to doubt if Jesus was historical, that's just silly. And the irony is you're talking about a figure and debating whether he's 99% mythlogized vs. 100% mythologized.

Even more ironic is that the people who want to shout the loudest that "of course there was a Jesus and you're stupid if you disagree" tend not to favor the minimal historical figure that could conceivable be reconstructed, but generally (though not always) favor the completely implausible biblical figure. It's one thing to say it's 50/50 or even 99/1 that there was a historical figure that was mythologized, but there's a 0% chance that the mythologized figure depicted in the bible was historical.

Wikipedia, for example, says that the only two things that are generally agreed upon are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and killed under Pontius Pilate. But neither of those figures are mentioned in any of the books that preceded or were written around the same time but in ignorance of the Gospels, suggesting that both narratives originated with Mark. And regarding Pontius Pilate, there's evidence of competing narratives from Christians who believed that Jesus was killed at least a decade later during the reign of Claudius, or even a century earlier during the rule of Alexander Janneus. [Personally, I find it odd that if there was an historical Jesus whose death was witnessed, with that death being connected to the beginning of the end times, that there was not a record of even the year that it took place, as the Gospels are also unclear and create disagreement in this regard.]

My take, after everything I've surveyed, is that it's probably like 60/40 in favor of non-historical -- there's enough variant weird shirt that make more sense without an actual historical figure getting in the way, especially in light of the historical silence from the secular world and the evidence of literary threads that the figure was drawn from. And it also lines up with the ebb and flow of the cult, as it seems to have not caught on very well died out among the original Jewish converts, and then caught on later with the gentiles after the Gospel stories began circulating, which would have rebranded the cult from being based around the revelatory nature discussed by Paul in favor of stories about direct communication from a god who walked the earth.

That said, I don't think it's impossible or stupid to believe that there was a minimal figure who was seen as an avatar, basically a "meat suit," for the heavenly figure they believed that scripture was informing them about, and there's enough ambiguity that if I squeeze my eyes I can kind of see it. It's just that once you take away the supernatural, there's not much left over to see how they would have made that connection, to elevate someone so mundane as to have escaped any contemporary historical notice to being God's equal.

And again, if there were ever a discovery of lost scrolls that removed the ambiguity, you're still talking about only moving the needle one way or the other between Jesus being 99% vs. 100% mythological.

 

[Consigliere]

I was thinking the same thing last night as I was trying to think of something other than the Saints. Both sides agree it is between 40% - 60% likely that ”somebody calling himself Joshua said enough about gods-and-ethics for the Romans to crucify him.” The rest is myth-making and cult-building. Maybe the pharisees had something to do it with it, maybe his birth name was Brian and he changed it to fit the scriptures, whatever. I think 60% because it is not a very high bar.

But, Pilate letting the crowd of Jews vote on whom to release? John having a verbatim transcript of the private Jesus-Pilate conversation? Matthew recording the Sermon On The Mount precisely? That’s a high bar.

The debate is bigger than it should be, probably because the thing between Ehrman and Carrier is personal. Carrier wants respect. Ehrman has it and will not share it. It amuses me. I like both anyway.

 

[bird]

Imo, there are several things at work regarding the NT. The gospels were collected versions of word of mouth stories likely from different geographic areas in the Middle East. They also were written to make various theological points to differentiate the nascent Christian movement which was not considered, iirc, “Christian” from the Jewish religion.

Paul did not write all the letters attributed to him. He and others basically created Christianity.

The Church is notorious for bashing to fit various stories regarding Yeshua with so-called Hebrew/Jewish prophesies. They are also very good at misinterpreting Hebrew/Jewish writing. Iirc, the word in Isaiah is “young girl” and not virgin. There is also issues with the contradictions that litter the OT and NT.

I do think that there was a real historical Yeshua since making up the story out of whole cloth would have been more difficult. That being said the gospel stories are not historically accurate but that is my opinion.

I will say one thing that I find funny regarding the group “Answers in Genesis” who run the Creation Museum. Everyone knows the story of the Ark and taking the animals two by two. And, of course, everyone knows it was one pair of each animal. Further reading shows that Noah was told to take seven pairs of “clean” animals. Nowhere in Genesis is there anything that says what “clean” means and the dietary laws were written much later.

 

[Consigliere]

Paul did not write all the letters attributed to him. He and others basically created Christianity.

Paul is the First Century Yogi Bera. He didn’t really say all the things that he said.

. Iirc, the word in Isaiah is “young girl” and not virgin. There is also issues with the contradictions that litter the OT and NT.

Bird, are you and Ehrman guy - this was the whole topic of last week‘s podcast.

I do think that there was a real historical Yeshua since making up the story out of whole cloth would have been more difficult. That being said the gospel stories are not historically accurate but that is my opinion.

Well if there were any itinerant apocalyptic prophet in that time and place, he would have renamed himself Yeshua, right? And there probably was at least one, right?

I will say one thing that I find funny regarding the group “Answers in Genesis” who run the Creation Museum. Everyone knows the story of the Ark and taking the animals two by two. And, of course, everyone knows it was one pair of each animal. Further reading shows that Noah was told to take seven pairs of “clean” animals. Nowhere in Genesis is there anything that says what “clean” means and the dietary laws were written much later.

Unicorns not clean, apparently - the horn or the hooves cloven, or something.

 

[bird]

Paul is the First Century Yogi Bera. He didn’t really say all the things that he said.


Bird, are you and Ehrman guy - this was the whole topic of last week‘s podcast.


Well if there were any itinerant apocalyptic prophet in that time and place, he would have renamed himself Yeshua, right? And there probably was at least one, right?

Unicorns not clean, apparently - the horn or the hooves cloven, or something.

I have read a fair amount of Ehrman. Also Elaine Pagels. Also Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s “Jesus Against Christianity: Reclaiming the Missing Jesus”.

 

[Huntn]

Yep, gods started as agricultural saviors that you would pray to for rain, a good harvest, etc., and eventually evolved into personal saviors that you would pray to for eternal life. Most modern religions, when you boil them down, are about escaping death.

I’ll propose there is no certainty about any transitions out of our mortal existence, which will certainly happen. The transition wll happen, the outcome is unknown.

 

[bird]

Yep, gods started as agricultural saviors that you would pray to for rain, a good harvest, etc., and eventually evolved into personal saviors that you would pray to for eternal life. Most modern religions, when you boil them down, are about escaping death.

Actually, imo, the three so-called Abrahamic religions are about social control. The priest/authority class use deity approval for various laws and mores to keep the populace basically from overthrowing the priest/authority class. Included in that is a ”reward” which occurs only after death.

 

[Consigliere]

Actually, imo, the three so-called Abrahamic religions are about social control. The priest/authority class use deity approval for various laws and mores to keep the populace basically from overthrowing the priest/authority class. Included in that is a ”reward” which occurs only after death.

That explains how those religions were used after their practitioners achieved dominance, but what about their formative years?

Judaism developed as the Jews were getting kicked around by Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, etc.

Christianity was an underdog religion in its first three centuries.

Dunno about Islam?

 

[bird]

That explains how those religions were used after their practitioners achieved dominance, but what about their formative years?

Judaism developed as the Jews were getting kicked around by Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, etc.

Christianity was an underdog religion in its first three centuries.

Dunno about Islam?

Yes, the Hebrews were kicked around. That doesn’t change the concept of social cohesion. The priest/authority class needed to maintain social cohesion with themselves at the top of the pyramid so to speak. The various laws, 613 iirc, were created to do just that. The use of deity did two things. It gave the priests cover and it made the people believe they were special. Thus every struggle could be framed as an attack upon deity and deity’s “chosen” people. This is classic use of “the other”. It is best demonstrated that the commandment can be read “Thou shall not commit murder”. The use of choseness allows for killing ”the other” as demonstrated by the fate of the Amorites, Hittites etc because they were not “people”. Only people can be murdered. Sub-humans can be killed with no problem.

Christianity simply assumed the mantle when it was obvious that The Christ wasn’t coming back in the lifetimes of the early followers. The spread of Christianity is one of the most amazing things in history. It is notable that Judaism did not spread in the manner of Christianity because Judaism required blood/genetics. It was spread via marriage and birth. They did not proselytize. I would posit Islam spread both like Christianity and via conquest and forced conversion. Christianity used forced conversion once it was merged with the power of the state which is the priest/authority class on steroids.

The entire process is tribalism by definition.

 

[Booker]

Yes, the Hebrews were kicked around. That doesn’t change the concept of social cohesion. The priest/authority class needed to maintain social cohesion with themselves at the top of the pyramid so to speak. The various laws, 613 iirc, were created to do just that. The use of deity did two things. It gave the priests cover and it made the people believe they were special. Thus every struggle could be framed as an attack upon deity and deity’s “chosen” people. This is classic use of “the other”. It is best demonstrated that the commandment can be read “Thou shall not commit murder”. The use of choseness allows for killing ”the other” as demonstrated by the fate of the Amorites, Hittites etc because they were not “people”. Only people can be murdered. Sub-humans can be killed with no problem.

Christianity simply assumed the mantle when it was obvious that The Christ wasn’t coming back in the lifetimes of the early followers. The spread of Christianity is one of the most amazing things in history. It is notable that Judaism did not spread in the manner of Christianity because Judaism required blood/genetics. It was spread via marriage and birth. They did not proselytize. I would posit Islam spread both like Christianity and via conquest and forced conversion. Christianity used forced conversion once it was merged with the power of the state which is the priest/authority class on steroids.

The entire process is tribalism by definition.

I think it’s not until a cult becomes adopted as a state religion (or is the only religion in a small, closed community) that you see it used for social control. When you can simply convert to a different cult/religion, it has no power over you, but when that option isn’t available or when not being a member can be used against you then it’s obviously a different story.

Regarding the spread of Christianity, it was just a minor cult until it was adopted as a Roman state religion in the early fourth century, and wasn’t until after other religions were outlawed in favor of it in the late fourth century that it really spread through the empire. Islam, as an opposing example, spread to become the dominant religion over a comparable land area in less than a century (aided by military conquest, of course).

 

[Consigliere]

Regarding the spread of Christianity, it was just a minor cult until it was adopted as a Roman state religion in the early fourth century, and wasn’t until after other religions were outlawed in favor of it in the late fourth century that it really spread through the empire. Islam, as an opposing example, spread to become the dominant religion over a comparable land area in less than a century (aided by military conquest, of course).

Bird & Booker, have you read The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark? Pretty good statistical analysis for the rise from a small group in 30 to 6 million (10% of the Roman Empire) in 313 right before Constantine. His thesis is 40% growth per decade gets you there. Reasons: first religion to combine with ethics; embracing all ethnicities and both genders, and weakness of pagan competition. Not without faults, but a good read.

 

[Booker]

Bird & Booker, have you read The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark? Pretty good statistical analysis for the rise from a small group in 30 to 6 million (10% of the Roman Empire) in 313 right before Constantine. His thesis is 40% growth per decade gets you there. Reasons: first religion to combine with ethics; embracing all ethnicities and both genders, and weakness of pagan competition. Not without faults, but a good read.

I have not, but my understanding is that the percentage of Christians in the empire was in the single digits through most of the third century before Constantine’s endorsement and then Theodosius’ mandate (though I have read that ease of conversion and egalitarianism made it an attractive option prior to that).

 

[Consigliere]

I have not, but my understanding is that the percentage of Christians in the empire was in the single digits through most of the third century before Constantine’s endorsement and then Theodosius’ mandate.

That understanding is the same as Stark and Ehrman (in the similarly named "Triumph of Christianity") which argue a bit but end up at the same place - 10% at the time Constantine "legalized it" in 313. Of course with the machinery of government, crony appointment of bishops, etc. it rose to about 50% in 400 or so (shortly after Theodosius made it not just legal but official in 380). Both books are good reads because the authors have different fields and different perspectives.

 

[bird]

I think it’s not until a cult becomes adopted as a state religion (or is the only religion in a small, closed community) that you see it used for social control. When you can simply convert to a different cult/religion, it has no power over you, but when that option isn’t available or when not being a member can be used against you then it’s obviously a different story.

Regarding the spread of Christianity, it was just a minor cult until it was adopted as a Roman state religion in the early fourth century, and wasn’t until after other religions were outlawed in favor of it in the late fourth century that it really spread through the empire. Islam, as an opposing example, spread to become the dominant religion over a comparable land area in less than a century (aided by military conquest, of course).

Imo, the entire purpose of the Mosaic law was social control. Part of it was to differentiate from other Semitic groups and part was control by the priest class to maintain that differentiation by use of deity approval/disapproval.

Christiamity started to do the same once Constantine merged the state with Christianity. Christianity was not simply legalized it became the religion of choice of the state. Yes, it took a long time to solidify its position but once the process of merging politics with the new religion started the Church leaders would seek to insure it did not fail. Indeed, with the collapse of the Western Empire the Church, imo, assumed a position approaching that of a state.

The Abrahamic religions have always been about social control. The more reactionary the sect then more rigid and controlling it becomes. Imo, the conservative elements of the Roman church in this country would find themselves beset by those reactionary Protestant sects that they have allied themselves with should said groups actually gain political power to remake the country. The reactionary sects do not consider the Roman church to be Christian. Their’s is at best a marriage of political expediency.

Much of my thought process on this revolves around the concept of political economy put forth by Lasswell which is that politics is the process by which is decided who gets what, where, when, how and why.

 

[Huntn]

I was thinking the same thing last night as I was trying to think of something other than the Saints. Both sides agree it is between 40% - 60% likely that ”somebody calling himself Joshua said enough about gods-and-ethics for the Romans to crucify him.” The rest is myth-making and cult-building. Maybe the pharisees had something to do it with it, maybe his birth name was Brian and he changed it to fit the scriptures, whatever. I think 60% because it is not a very high bar.

But, Pilate letting the crowd of Jews vote on whom to release? John having a verbatim transcript of the private Jesus-Pilate conversation? Matthew recording the Sermon On The Mount precisely? That’s a high bar.

The debate is bigger than it should be, probably because the thing between Ehrman and Carrier is personal. Carrier wants respect. Ehrman has it and will not share it. It amuses me. I like both anyway.

Folklore… the easy answer. A decade or so ago, it might have been the History Channel, said that there are no city’s/state records that a Jew name Jesus rocked the boat, much less claimed to be the defacto Son of God, impregnating a human being to accomplish this, and upon death whisked away to heaven. We know that virgin birth was a recycled idea from previous religious cycles.

The only documentation for Jesus will be found in ancient “religious” texts, edited and redacted by the Catholic Church. And they have no agenda but truth and saving us… Of note, average people did not know how to write, the disciples as far as I know did not , were fishermen, most of the texts found, as I understand it, were written hundreds of years after the time frame when Jesus was reported to have lived. So, you want a good story? I like Paul Bunya, better yet, Lord of the Rings.

 

[SystemShock]

I think it’s not until a cult becomes adopted as a state religion (or is the only religion in a small, closed community) that you see it used for social control. When you can simply convert to a different cult/religion, it has no power over you, but when that option isn’t available or when not being a member can be used against you then it’s obviously a different story.

Regarding the spread of Christianity, it was just a minor cult until it was adopted as a Roman state religion in the early fourth century, and wasn’t until after other religions were outlawed in favor of it in the late fourth century that it really spread through the empire. Islam, as an opposing example, spread to become the dominant religion over a comparable land area in less than a century (aided by military conquest, of course).

Even at the cult level you'll find some form of social control, like the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate. Jonestown, etc., and the main factor for this control is the desire of people to believe in the doctrine, whether willfully or through indoctrination.

I too see this social control as evolutionary in nature, as humans started to use logic to see the world around them, as misguided as it was with the little knowledge they had. A very simplistic (yet long) example, people start questioning what makes fruit grow on trees, the idea of a fruit god is formed, then the tree doesn't give fruit, then they think the god is mad at them, then people come up with some idea as to what made the god angry; someone suggests to kill a goat, then lo and behold the tree gives fruit again... now the person who suggested killing the goat, people think he has a connection to this god, so they turn to him to tell them what to do.

 

[Booker]

Even at the cult level you'll find some form of social control, like the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate. Jonestown, etc., and the main factor for this control is the desire of people to believe in the doctrine, whether willfully or through indoctrination.

Yeah, any kind of closed religious community gives the leaders outsized influence over the members. Likewise, there’s the threat of being shunned by your family and friends for being an apostate, like with Jehovah’s Witnesses.