Reddit reviews The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
We found 11 Reddit comments about The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
[Continued From Above.]
The TL:DR version of the above article: The Trial of Jesus, as depicted in the Canon Gospels, is not supported in many essential and required elements against the much more credible records of Roman Jurisprudence of the time. The Trial of Jesus, in the Gospels was written by someone that was highly ignorant of the actual system; i.e., "fake news".
And from the low credibility of the Trial of Jesus, even more doubt is cast against the following events as depicted in the Gospels.
From Chapter 4. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know: The Resurrection: What We Cannot Know
[A link to the full argument I posted a couple years ago - warning it is a wall of text]
The Too Effing long;Won't Read: Unless a cause can be made against the burden of proof for Divine Intervention regarding the resurrection narrative, it is more likely that the Roman criminal Jesus was left to rot after death via crucifixion for the birds and other carrion feeding animals and/or the remains buried in a common unmarked grave. The allowance of removal of the body immediately after death was extremely rare and the circumstances of the death of Jesus, and his family, does not correlate with the historical record of those special exceptions. Additionally, if the body was released immediately (unlikely) Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to have provided a tome and burial of Jesus as this represents a contradiction of the resurrection narrative.
The necessary event to support the argument from "An Empty Tomb," i.e., the putting of the dead body of Jesus in a tomb is highly questionable and rather unsupported by the Roman policies and practices of the day. And this non-credible event continues the decrease in the reliability and confidence of the Resurrection claim and narrative.
The above discussion casts significant unanswered doubts that the Jesus character would have even been placed in an empty tomb to begin with. A disastrous point of contention that undermines the entire "Then how do you explain the empty tomb?" fallacy of reverse burden of proof that apologists pull to support the Gospel narratives as historical and true.
But what of the Gospel narrative of the Empty Tomb - well, there are a great many discrepancies of the Gospel narratives concerning the discovery of the Empty Tomb. And given that there is significance evidence that the later Gospel writers were aware of, and had copies of, the earlier Gospels, the scope and magnitude of these discrepancies completely eclipse the pivotal and essential role of the Empty Tomb in the Resurrection claim and narrative.
And thus, the testimony of the canon Gospels themselves further reduce the reliability and confidence of the Biblical Resurrection claim and narrative, and thus, reduces the credibility of the historicity of Jesus claim.
OP, should I continue?
> Tacitus, .... non-Christian sources supporting the existence of Jesus....
I am aware of the claims of the following historians/histories that are usually called upon to show extra-Biblical support of the historical existence of Jesus.
And against these claims of extra-Biblical support to the partial historicity of the Jesus character (none of these references support, or even begin to approach, a case for FULL historicity) - collectively these sources DO NOT paint a clear and highly convincing picture of a Jewish man named Jesus who truly lived during the AD first century, and DOES NOT support that "researchers agree virtually unanimously."
And what is the text of these historians you mentioned?
sources: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty, January 1, 2005 and Choking on the Camel, by Ebon Musings/Daylight Atheism
Of all the ancient historians claimed to bear witness to the existence of Jesus, Josephus is without a doubt the one cited most frequently by Christians. He was a respected Jewish historian who worked for the Romans under the patronage of Emperor Vespasian; born around 37 CE, he is also the closest to the time of Jesus of all the historians cited by apologists. His two major surviving works are titled The Antiquities of the Jews, a detailed history of the Jewish people based largely on biblical records, and The Jewish War, a history of the disastrous Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem around 70 CE.
Antiquities, book 18, chapter 3, contains the most infamous reference to Jesus to be found in the work of any historian. Few passages have ignited as much debate as this one, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, whose full text appears below:
>> “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”
To anyone unfamiliar with the debates swirling around this passage, it might appear to provide startling corroboration of the Gospel stories in virtually every detail. In fact, it seems too fantastic to be true. And indeed, this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of critical scholars today. No one argues other than that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, a forgery, a later interpolation into Josephus’ work. We can be certain of this for several reasons. One is that the enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus’ miracles could only have been written by a Christian, and Josephus was not a Christian. He was an orthodox Jew and remained so his entire life. The church father Origen, who quoted freely from Josephus, wrote that he was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ”. Furthermore, in The Jewish War, Josephus specifically states his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies – which is what got him his job in the first place.
So, imagine we remove the obvious Christian interpolations – phrases such as “if it be lawful to call him a man”, “he was the Christ”, and “he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold”. Could we let the rest remain, preserving a “reduced” Testimonium in which Josephus testifies to the simple existence of Jesus as a teacher and wise man without touting him as a messiah or a miracle-worker?
This is the position taken by most Christian scholars today, but it too is flawed. For one thing, even the “reduced” Testimonium still praises Jesus highly. This is very unlikely. Elsewhere Josephus does mention other self-proclaimed messiahs of the time, such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician, but he has nothing but evil to say about them. He scorns them as deceivers and deluders, labels them “false prophets”, “impostors” and “cheats”, blames them for wars and famines that afflicted the Jews, and more. This is entirely understandable, since Josephus was writing under Roman patronage, and the Romans did not look highly on the self-proclaimed messiahs of the time since many of them preached about overturning the established order, i.e., Roman rule. (“The meek shall inherit the earth” would have fallen squarely into this category, as would “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”) Some messiah claimants went even further by actively confronting the established authority and sowing dissent (Jesus’ expulsion of the money-changers from the temple comes to mind). The Romans were prone to express their displeasure at these types of activities by executing the messiah claimants, several other examples of which Josephus does tell us about. Had Josephus genuinely written about Jesus he would have been compelled to denounce him, not only because of his orthodox Jewish beliefs but because he had to stay in accord with Roman views or risk being imprisoned or worse. It is all but impossible that he could have written even the “reduced” Testimonium.
[Character Limit. To Be Continued.]
Check out Robert Price. One of the best biblical scholars.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com
Check out his book "The incredible shrinking son of man."
http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Shrinking-Son-Man-Tradition/dp/1591021219
Another good one is "The Jesus Puzzle."
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
Also, here is a good intro to the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
I don't see anything about it there, but it's also worth looking into the naritive-related arguments... like comparisons to prior mythology.
Horus, Mithra, and Dionysus in particular.
As for scholars that disagree with me, I would say it is all about quality over quantity. You can look at biased scholars who start out believing in a historical jesus and then conclude (what a surprise) that a historical jesus existed, or you can look at a neutral scholar like Price who is far more honest.
As Price says, only someone who doesn't believe can truely appriciate the bible. Someone who believes will always limit themselves by what they have been taught.
That is why believers often ignore the massive amounts of horror in the bible in favor of the relitively few passages that seem to advocate peace and love. An honest read reveals some of the most horrific things ever written.
A scholar like Price though, can point out that the bible really isn't either. There is a lot more to the stories it contains. Some are myths based on history, like Cain and Able really being about the Caininnites and their enemies. Some is prior mythology, like the first sentence. "Without form and void." Form and void in hebrew are the names of the dragons Yahweh defeated to earn the creation of the world. A believe can't admit these things, but they are plain as day.
It sounds like you're already familiar with it, but just in case, the most plausible mythicist theory (in my opinion) of Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald is not simply that Jesus was made up from whole cloth at a later time or something, but that the original concept of Jesus was of him as a celestial deity, existing only in the heavenly realms. He was later "euhemerized" and placed into stories on earth (this was a common practice), and these later stories became cannonized into the gospels, and the earlier views of him as a celestial-only deity were lost.
The strongest case for this is in the early epistles, where many references to Jesus actually make more sense as a celestial Jesus than a Jesus-on-earth. One strong example:
> Hebrews 8:4 “For if he [Jesus] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”
> An astounding verse, and one that might well be considered the “smoking gun” proving that early Christians did not believe in a human, historical Jesus. Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 discuss the covenant of sacrifice between God and man. The writer is comparing the Jewish tabernacle, where the high priest makes blood sacrifices of animals to God within the heart of the sanctuary, with the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” (9:11) of Heaven, where Jesus offers his own blood within the heavenly sanctuary as a more perfect sacrifice to God. The underlying theme here is clearly a Platonic one: human actions on Earth mirror divine actions in Heaven, the imperfect material world reflecting the perfect divine world.
> As the writer of Hebrews crafts this analogy, he mentions, almost in passing, that if Jesus were on Earth, he would have had nothing to do, because there were already priests there offering sacrifices. Jesus’ role was only in Heaven, where he could offer his blood as a better sacrifice.
> But how could any writer who knew a human Jesus possibly have said this? How could he have overlooked the blindingly obvious fact that Jesus did have a purpose on Earth, that in fact he had to come here precisely to fulfill this purpose? Why does he seem to think that Jesus’ offering of his own blood took place exclusively in Heaven?
> From the gospel standpoint, this is impossible to explain. From the spiritual-Jesus standpoint, it is very easy, and indeed fits perfectly, like a lock in a key, with the scenario this essay puts forward.
Just butting in here to recommend On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
Carrier has stated he was firmly in the historical Jesus camp until he was introduced to Earl Doherty's hypothesis in The Jesus Puzzle.
I would also highly Highly recommend reading some criticisms of the myth theory, just to sharpen and refine your thoughts on the subject. Start here with reddit's (or rather /r/badhistory 's) own Tim O'Neill: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014_01_01_archive.html
I am not a theist btw -- I am a diest at best. I just don't like reading nonsense (in any form).
If you believe that Jesus is 100% mythical, I would like to present Barth Ehrman, a highly respect HISTORIAN who has spent a great deal of his career on separating the myth of Christ from the reality.
He is just one of many HISTORIANS who work on things like this. They have a wide variety of tools for the work of separating myth from history. Are you aware of any of them?
Here are some of Bart's books:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199740305/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-8
You may also want to check out "the Context Group" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group
Here are some of their books:
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Galilean-Shaman-Anthropological-Historical-Perspective/dp/0227173201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421621&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peasants-Matrix-Mediterranean-Context/dp/1597522759
Now it's your turn -- please present scholarly and respected sources for the idea that Jesus is 100% myth.
I can help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty
http://www.thegodmovie.com
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278422009&sr=8-1
These people DO have an ideological ax to grind. I'm not buying it. Are there myths in the story of Christ? Of course. Is it 100% myth with no historical figure behind it at all? No way.
>Yet while he never delineates Gospel specifics (other than the Last Supper, the Crucifixion & Resurrection- three of them you claimed he doesn't)
Sorry, I should have been clearer when I said…
>the only part of the Jesus story Paul does write about, just so happens to match almost exactly the same death and resurrection arc attributed to hundreds of hero warrior gods throughout antiquity
…that this is exactly the part I was referring to. The death and resurrection narrative is, contrary to your assertion, littered throughout ancient folklore.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269831504&sr=1-1
>I suggest you read the early Church Fathers objectively. Seems as if you're actively looking to prove a thesis you already have (that Jesus never existed or that he wasn't what Christians claim he is or whatever). Early Church history is actually quite fascinating.
I couldn't agree more on that—and I'm sorry if I seem 'pre-convinced', because I'm not. The historicity of it is, as you say, truly fascinating stuff. But as I'm sure you'll also concede that doesn't necessarily make any of it true. And I don't mean that in a small way. I mean how, for example, would you explain to someone in 2000 years time what the narrative of the Superman story was supposed to impart, if you were to travel forward in time and arrive in a future where astronomers who could prove there was never a planet Krypton were accused of being selective, or "actively looking to prove a thesis [they] already have"?
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to have noticed by now, incidentally, that I might just as easily say the same about Christianity's truth-claims as you say about mine to the contrary—which I would like to assure you extend much further than having watched merely a few direct-to-web documentaries, however well the one to which you refer to happens to have been made. I was born and raised for the first 16 years of my life a Catholic and "got saved" at around 10 or 11. I've been religion free for the best part of the last 20 years and an atheist since September 11th 2001.
Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle http://www.amazon.com/The-Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging/dp/096892591X and other scholars I have read, have make a good case. Also re-read the 7 books in the Bible that are most likely from Paul. You can see it yourself. He says it himself. Textual criticism in Christianity started centuries ago. And the last 10 years has been very productive.
>Nothing exists from that time to give indication of day to day activities of anyone from antiquity. Nothing.
Are you kidding? There is an amazing amount of material to study from that time in China.
>odd penchant for telling us all what Mazu or Huineng was thinking
Really? Mazu said some interesting stuff, and his meetings with others were interesting to read about. I try to refer to that. If I go off and make up claims about it that are not in what he and his followers said and did, please set me straight.
I guess you weren't there for my conversations regarding McRae and other scholars. Sorry, I thought you had been there.
Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? argues strongly that he his existed is well proven.
Similarly, Wikipedia says: "The theory that Jesus never existed at all (the Christ myth theory) has very little scholarly support.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[10] but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD,[11][12][13] that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate[14][15][16] and that he lived in Galilee and Judea.[17][18][19]" Notice all the footnotes.
And yes, that is what I believed until I started reading books by Doherty and Carrier.
You might be interested in reading The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. It is an amazing work of scholarly criticism into the question of the historicity of Jesus.
The Christ Myth theory is alive and well. There is always room to expand your knowledge. A couple places to start:
Probably the best place to start is Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist?. Bart Ehrman, a hugely respected NT scholar, undertook to write the definitive counter to Jesus mythicism. Failed. Miserably. As Carrier or Price says in the intro, that's a good thing. Arguably the most respected NT scholar pooped out a turd that basically says "most scholars agree therefore Jesus." The book I linked is the response by the mythers whose work Ehrman misrepresented, lied about, and so on, and it's fucking hilarious. In the course of things they rpesent LOTS of things that would interest you.
>First, most of our authors were discussed in it (DJE) and we feel obligated to respond, to clear the air of misconceptions and even misrepresentations. Though Professor Erhman is a true scholar, we fear his treatment of our work was, let's say, casual (a euphemism for `slipshod')."
Ouch.
>Looking for good resources on how Christianity's central articles of faith (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) are identical to "Pagan" mythology.
Whoa there boy! They aren't identical. There's a shitload of pagan stuff in there, particularly Cynic philosophy, along with various dying and rising god mystery religions, but there's also a lot of Jewish mysticism too. Jesus, after all, is simply the turn of the era Yehoshua (Joshua) who lead the Jews into the promised land. Robert Price's Deconstructing Jesus is the go to on that. He lays out just how those various cults and philosophies and shit syncreted into the Jesus myth. But beware - you'll need to look up and read something about every other reference and having an online OED will help too. He's fucking dense with shit you never even heard of or thought about. Hell, anything by Price is worth reading. Get them all!
From the top review for The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
>Robert Price has very ably and empirically deconstructed the Christ myth to the point that the only item still seriously in question is whether the first layer of Q can be attributed to a Nazerite named Jesus. Price's successful deconstruction thus begs [NO! It forces or elicits or demands but not "begs FSM damnit! - YFG] the question: What is the history of how a diverse group of followers came to worship a character who eventually attained the status of the one true God? Enter Earl Doherty and his book, "the Jesus Puzzle".
The God who Wasn't There I haven't seen but some of my fellow mythers said it's worth watching.
Look up Doherty, Zindler, Carrier.
And someone just today linked to a Richard Carrier lecture on "Acts as historical fiction. Lemmes see if I can find it for ya ... http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/03/richard-carriers-lecture-on-acts-as.html