Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[h_k_s]

[My own bias is that Christ Myth theory is not only credible, but that it is a nearly inevitable conclusion (and the wave of the future), given that the current state of data remains unchanged. Of course, as the cliche runs, "tomorrow we may find..." some record left by a first-generation disciple or, better yet, by a hostile witness to Jesus's supposed ministry. So I keep the historical Jesus on the back burner precisely because we cannot disprove Jesus's existence, and because an authentic discovery of it would invert Christ Myth theory.]

Core tenets of the theory:

1. The earliest known Christian texts - Paul's "seven authentic letters" - contain no unambiguous reference to a historical (or the Gospel) Jesus.
This is as remarkable as a book about Scientology never mentioning founder L. Ron Hubbard, or a book about the Gettysburg Address never mentioning Abraham Lincoln. It's not a matter of the cliched objection, "But Paul's letters were written as ad hoc crisis solutions, not biographies!", because Paul never mentions a historical Jesus at all - even when he could cite Jesus's example to sort out any number of church problems.

2. No non-Christian texts from the time in question survive, if indeed they existed in the first place. Had they existed, the two Jewish Wars would almost certainly have resulted in their loss or destruction.

3. Supposed non-Christian texts (both versions of Josephus for example) about Jesus are either scribal interpolations or forgeries; or they come far too late to shed any light on the historical Jesus. They consist of repetitions of things contemporary Christians were telling Hellenistic interlocutors what they believed about Jesus - beliefs that derived from proto-Gospel writings, not from venerable eyewitness testimony.

4. Proposition: "Jesus" was originally held to be a non-historical celestial angelic being - a preexistent, primordial "Son" who undertook a kind of "incarnation" - not on earth,but in the lower heavens, where he was "handed over" (either by God or by Satan) to the demonic "Powers and Principalities" who submitted him to suffering, death, burial (the heavens were held to contain gardens, temples, and even soil), and then raised by God.
Mythicism holds that the "Resurrection experience" on which earliest Christianity was founded consisted of private visions and revelations from the transcendental heavenly Christ - not from a resuscitated Jesus who had lived on earth. This was the original "Good News" or Gospel - the heavenly Jesus had defeated the Powers through his suffering, death and resurrection in the celestial realm.

5. Through a gradual process of "euhemerization", the previously spiritual Christ of Paul's letters was enhanced, solidified, reified - and eventually replaced in Christian theology - by a Gospel Jesus who was said to have lived on earth, chosen disciples, taught, performed cures and exorcisms, was a renewal movement founder within Judaism, a teacher of parables...and finally, an atoning blood sacrifice and risen savior (and coincidentally or not, the Passion Narratives just happen to be the earliest strata of the Gospels). Mark's Gospel is our first known account of this historicized Jesus.

6. Christ Myth theorists meet the common scholarly objection that mainstream exegetes' charge that Christ Myth is quirky and highly improbable with the retort that - as has been said about scientific discovery generally - "knowledge proceeds one funeral at a time". That is, Christ Myth's probity is not decided by committee or by popularity, but rather by critical historical procedures.

Two Questions:

That, in brief, is Christ Myth theory. If you are a historicist, the burden is on you to supply evidence of a historical Jesus without resorting to the insufficient sources mentioned above. Which leaves Paul's seven authentic letters as the primary source.
What do you think?

If you are a mythicist, the burden is on you to historically detail the putative euhemerization process mentioned above. Can you provide a "paper trail" that documents the evolution (devolution?) of Christ as a heavenly entity into a human being who lived on earth and at least part of whose story made its way into the Gospels?
That is, how did the Gospels become "history"?

I'm neither a scholar nor a historian, but I've been bitten by the Christ Myth "bug". I can't be a clearing house for a huge fund of Christ Myth information. My chief motive for this post is to see the issue kicked around - to see what readers think of this issue.

You are omitting Josephus Flavius. He was a witness of the times, very close to a contemporary of Jesus and of Paul.

[h_k_s]

Sculptor1 said: It takes a diabolically rank sort of c*unt to give child cancer.

Well, "give" is an overly anthropomorphic indictment, "make it possible" is the most one can say, especially since most cancer appears to be a byproduct of human folly, i.e., man-made toxins and pollution. It would be more accurate to say the purveyors of those poisons are giving children cancer.

But as Woody Allen said, "If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse."

Now I remember why I put Sculptor1 on iggy.

[steveb1]

steveb1: I do believe that the historical/Gospel Jesus is a literary construction rather than a real figure, but as I said in the OP, I'm willing to let potential future archaeological evidence change my mind.

Where have you been? We've had the archaeological evidence that Jesus existed since the 1940's when the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, a.k.a., Gnostic gospels, were discovered in Egypt.

That's a good one. As you know, the Gnostic Gospels are literary texts, not archeological evidence from Jesus or from eyewitness contemporaries. They're even later than the canonical Gospels.

[h_k_s]

Are you saying that there was no historical Jesus? Or that Jesus was not of the divine?

I was also really into the Christ myth theory for a while. I read and listened to Richard Carrier and Robert Price. In the end I came to the conclusion that while we may not know much about Jesus- he almost certainly existed. I'm partial to the theory that Jesus never actually claimed to be the Son of God, but rather the idea of his divinity was promoted after his death (I believe this is Bart Ehrman's position).

You should take a close look at Mark 14:61-62.

Jesus is asked by the chief priest if he is Son Of God? Jesus answers yes.

https://biblehub.com/ylt/mark/14.htm#53

[steveb1]

"You are omitting Josephus Flavius. He was a witness of the times, very close to a contemporary of Jesus and of Paul."


And you didn't read my post, where I said:

"3. Supposed non-Christian texts (both versions of Josephus for example) about Jesus are either scribal interpolations or forgeries; or they come far too late to shed any light on the historical Jesus. They consist of repetitions of things contemporary Christians were telling Hellenistic interlocutors what they believed about Jesus - beliefs that derived from proto-Gospel writings, not from venerable eyewitness testimony."

[steveb1]

steveb1: I do believe that the historical/Gospel Jesus is a literary construction rather than a real figure, but as I said in the OP, I'm willing to let potential future archaeological evidence change my mind.

Where have you been? We've had the archaeological evidence that Jesus existed since the 1940's when the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, a.k.a., Gnostic gospels, were discovered in Egypt.

The Gnostic Gospels are not eyewitness testimonies. They're even later than the Gospels. Where have you been?

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor1 said: It takes a diabolically rank sort of c*unt to give child cancer.

Well, "give" is an overly anthropomorphic indictment, "make it possible" is the most one can say, especially since most cancer appears to be a byproduct of human folly,


But as Woody Allen said, "If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse."

Cancer is not the result of human folly. Human endeavour has against the workings of nature extended human life and reduced suffering. God can't wriggle out of his responsibility.
Cancer has always been part of life from the start. It's coded in the the "design" of genetics.
But God's cruelty does not stop at cancer; parasites that burrow into the eyes of children, snakes, poisonous spiders, TB, Plague, scrofula, influenza which killed more people after WW1 than died during WW1. This last fact alone is a direct comparison with humanity's greatest folly directly comparable with God's casual cruelty.

Let's talk about undue anthropomorphism? This thread is about the "CHRIST MYTH". How more anthropomorphic can you get?? When God BECOMES a man? When the myth insists that God inhabited a human host/ was human/ fathered a human.
So such an objection is not relevant.

[anonymous66]

Are you saying that there was no historical Jesus? Or that Jesus was not of the divine?

I was also really into the Christ myth theory for a while. I read and listened to Richard Carrier and Robert Price. In the end I came to the conclusion that while we may not know much about Jesus- he almost certainly existed. I'm partial to the theory that Jesus never actually claimed to be the Son of God, but rather the idea of his divinity was promoted after his death (I believe this is Bart Ehrman's position).

You should take a close look at Mark 14:61-62.

Jesus is asked by the chief priest if he is Son Of God? Jesus answers yes.

https://biblehub.com/ylt/mark/14.htm#53

You don't have to convince me that the Bible says that Jesus said he was the Son of God. You have to convince me that Jesus actually said those words.

[anonymous66]

steveb1 The use of the term "euhemerization" in your OP is a little confusing... Euhemerization is the process by which actual historical figures later became known as being divine. "If no historical Jesus ever existed in the first place how could he have become "euhemerized"

To put it another way... Yes. I think it's entirely possible that Jesus was a historical figure, and that he gradually become "euhemerized".

[Felix]

steveb1 said: The Gnostic Gospels are not eyewitness testimonies. They're even later than the Gospels

It contains entries by Jesus' disciple Paul, which were believed to have been written during his lifetime. At any rate, it's difficult to believe that so much would be written about a man who never actually existed.

[MAYA EL]

steveb1: I do believe that the historical/Gospel Jesus is a literary construction rather than a real figure, but as I said in the OP, I'm willing to let potential future archaeological evidence change my mind.

Where have you been? We've had the archaeological evidence that Jesus existed since the 1940's when the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, a.k.a., Gnostic gospels, were discovered in Egypt.

That is not evidence that he was a real person.
It's the equivalent to having most of the marvel movies and not knowing that your missing one and then finding the last one in the trilogy over at your friends house.
Is all it proved is that there were other people using the same Hellenistic interpretation. And even then I still can't put that much credit into it because just like the Dead Sea Scrolls they were sucked up and carefully examined before we ever got our hands on them and I promise you all conflicting documentation stayed hidden or got Rewritten.

[Felix]

MAYA EL: And even then I still can't put that much credit into it because just like the Dead Sea Scrolls they were sucked up and carefully examined before we ever got our hands on them and I promise you all conflicting documentation stayed hidden or got Rewritten.

We know that didn't happen because much of the information in it is considered heretical by the Catholic Church (e.g., the statement that Jesus was married), and they would have preferred it never saw the light of day.

One should not confuse the historical evidence that Jesus the man existed with evidence for the claim by the Church that the historical Jesus was literally the son of God - two very different things.

[h_k_s]

You should take a close look at Mark 14:61-62.

Jesus is asked by the chief priest if he is Son Of God? Jesus answers yes.

https://biblehub.com/ylt/mark/14.htm#53

You don't have to convince me that the Bible says that Jesus said he was the Son of God. You have to convince me that Jesus actually said those words.

Ok then that's a slightly different issue.

Since it has been around 20 centuries since all that happened, and since the Gospel authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and Paul do not agree in their narratives exactly, we will never know exactly what happened back in those days long ago.

During those 20 centuries Christianity has undergone many changes that make it unrecognizable from its original form. Today it is just another organized religion used as a vehicle to control the masses.

Religion itself is a black box and a dead end. It is very good for brainwashing children, but once these children grow up then they themselves are caught in a trap that they most often do not have the tools to escape from.

Pure philosophy provides those tools.

Philosophy provides rationalism for those who are thinking, stoicism for those who are suffering, and epicureanism for those who are most fortunate.

And if you want to believe in a philosophy-God, then Aristotle, Aquinas, and Leibniz provide proofs of God which will give anyone seeking God individually and independently of organized religion a way to do so.

[h_k_s]

MAYA EL: And even then I still can't put that much credit into it because just like the Dead Sea Scrolls they were sucked up and carefully examined before we ever got our hands on them and I promise you all conflicting documentation stayed hidden or got Rewritten.

We know that didn't happen because much of the information in it is considered heretical by the Catholic Church (e.g., the statement that Jesus was married), and they would have preferred it never saw the light of day.

One should not confuse the historical evidence that Jesus the man existed with evidence for the claim by the Church that the historical Jesus was literally the son of God - two very different things.

There is always a chance that Pope Francis will let Catholic priests be married, again.

Never give up hope.

[Sculptor1]

We know that didn't happen because much of the information in it is considered heretical by the Catholic Church (e.g., the statement that Jesus was married), and they would have preferred it never saw the light of day.

One should not confuse the historical evidence that Jesus the man existed with evidence for the claim by the Church that the historical Jesus was literally the son of God - two very different things.

There is always a chance that Pope Francis will let Catholic priests be married, again.

Never give up hope.

But he will never give back the innocence to millions of children whose lives have been blighted in the "care" of the church for over a thousand years.
Catholicism can never recover from the evil it has spread, and continues to spread the world over.