How Historians Know Jesus Did Not Exist

[Rhythmcs]

Justin gives us insight there as well. He (and we can assume whatever christian community the author represents) believed that the prophets were the true philosophers™, revelation having come from god and all. That christianity was the fulfillment of platonic philosophy. That greek philosophy derived it's truth from the teachings of moses.

Julian famously disagreed, centuries later...according to the christians, ofc. I don't think he rejected christianity for any of the rationalizations attributed to him, though. I think it was simpler. He watched the pious christians he'd been raised to be kill his family. It's comforting to see that the hypocrisy of christianity as we experience it today was already there in full force from it's earliest days. One of the more amusing bits from that row being the argument over the christian god in public schools. Identical in character and content -on both sides- to the disagreement between christian dominionists and everyone else today. Right down to the class dimensions and attempted bureaucratic coup of it all.

[Minimalist]

The rabble believe crazy shit to this very day.  The big pagan/christian changeover did nothing for that.  Comes standard.

Indeed.  But in 1 BCE the vast bulk of the population would have been primitive shits who thought that there were gods in charge of every aspect of the world.  They can be forgiven because they knew fuckall about how the world worked.  Sacrificing a chicken is not going to make it rain, then or now.

Today's idiots are idiots by choice.  The information is out there for them but they choose to ignore it.  Hence I will readily give ancient equivalents of magatards a pass because they knew nothing else.  In those days we would have been the weird ones.

But not now.

[Cavebear]

The rabble believe crazy shit to this very day.  The big pagan/christian changeover did nothing for that.  Comes standard.

Indeed.  But in 1 BCE the vast bulk of the population would have been primitive shits who thought that there were gods in charge of every aspect of the world.  They can be forgiven because they knew fuckall about how the world worked.  Sacrificing a chicken is not going to make it rain, then or now.

Today's idiots are idiots by choice.  The information is out there for them but they choose to ignore it.  Hence I will readily give ancient equivalents of magatards a pass because they knew nothing else.  In those days we would have been the weird ones.

But not now.

If you mean 1 BCE magatards, OK. Yeah, they didn't have much in the way of science then. But I won't give any respect for the current ones who ought to know better. I suppose they all just "zoned-out" through high school and forgot what little they crammed enough to pass tests and forgot immediately afterwards.

[Rhythmcs]

The way christianity likes to tell the tale, they spread across the map like wildfire with their compelling story - but that's not what happened. It took centuries. The vast bulk of the population was superstitious in a way that ruled out christianity. We see it today as well. Where one group of nuts rejects the things another group of nuts says for nutty reasons. OFC christianity was rejected by atheists then too...and atheism was more common and successful in pre-christian rome than it would be anywhere else until enlightenment.

This was the hill that early christian leaders and apologists had to climb. They did it from the top down, not by convincing the rabble...but by replacing the intelligentsia and rulers through the exploitation of the rabble. Essentially creating the conditions and then playing off of hellenic pagan rulers fear of social upheaval. The plagues helped too, obviously.

-and all of that also has more to do with the jesus we have today than any jesus the man ever could. Jesus gets roman as hell. Tells em to pay their taxes...but they weren't going to do that. That was, in fact, their mine gripe with the roman state religion. They destroyed the roman administrative state instead, starting with roman schools that taught all that shit up above. The woke colleges ofc, that taught atheism and epicurianism and euhemerism and apathetic maltheism, ofc....but, eventually, the good pagan stuff™ too, the imperial cult, and all of the pagan philosophies they initially referred to when making their case to romes rulers for an alliance of authoritarian (and dynasty usurping) convenience.

You'll notice that "pay your taxes" isn't supernatural...and it's not a part of the consensus of scholars. That's considered an aspect of romanization. It's a shame when you step back and realize that christianity found itself constrained from the get go by the peculiarities of a small subset of roman people. The original jesus-the-man could have been more persian...for starters..but then again we see that jesus gets ethnic everywhere he goes....so this anyman idea represented by the hj has some merit, even if it isn't historical merit.

[Minimalist]

But I won't give any respect for the current ones who ought to know better.

Oh, they KNOW better, Cavebear. They are reminded of it every time they plug in an appliance, or start their pickup trucks or watch Fuckface run his fucking mouth on FOX.

They know it, but they don't care. And that's why they are despicable pieces of shit.

[Minimalist]

The original jesus-the-man could have been more persian...for starters.

Correct, Rhythmics.  He COULD have been but that did not matter to the creators of this horseshit.  They did not create "Jesus the Man."  They created "Jesus the God."  The whole point of this long discussion is the apparent fact that prior to about 1906 no one was seriously looking for any "historical jesus"( or jesus just a man.)  That would have been heresy to the orthodox assholes who tolerated no variation from their self-indulgent bullshit and probably gotten you killed or at least badly beaten up by loving xhristards.

You will not find a single church father defending the concept of their godboy being a mere man who wandered around Galilee annoying the authorities and got himself killed for being a pain in their asses.  


As late as 1615 this moron was still pushing only the Biblical Jesus....or Mythical Jesus if you prefer.

[Minimalist]

By the way, there is evidence that Justin Martyr's First Apology has been tampered with by later xtians.  

At the end of the First Apology "Justin" attaches a letter, supposedly written by Marcus Aurelius in 174 depicting a legend of a rain miracle where xtians in his army praying caused a rain storm which the Romans needed as they were out of water.  

Antoninus Pius, to whom the Apology is addressed, died in 161 CE and Marcus Aurelius succeeded him.  The letter in question supposedly dates from a campaign in the Balkans around 170 and was written in 174.

So...how would "Justin"  who supposedly died c 165 have been able to attach a letter to an Apology sent to an emperor who died 13 years before the letter was written when he himself had died 9 years before the letter was written.

I know. Xhristards will claim it's another fucking "miracle!"

[Rhythmcs]

Maybe. Maybe christian sources are so utterly full of shit that you can't trust a word they say or even that they were writing from the same universe they were living in. Later additions and forgeries are a problem for the christian fairy tale, but not for pan hellenist skepticism of christian tall tales. We know that the hellenic world already had euhemerist, materialist, and even atheist schools of thought centuries before christianity was a twinkle in a conmans eye. By 165 or by 174 we have christian authors telling us they were familiar with a wide range of classical objections to their new religion...and specifically the idea that this whole christ bit was a ripoff of the work of the poets. We know (and again from christian sources) that this had not yet been resolved by 360 or so during the reign of julian....who decided it was a hill he'd die on, thus earning him the moniker apostate.

That's 300 years, at least, of people doubting this thing, before it managed to silence dissent on one tiny corner of the world. The notion that no one thought jesus was made up at the time is both a bad defense of a historical jesus and a completely ahistorical argument in it's own right.

[Minimalist]

The earliest extant manuscript of the First Apology dates to around 1375 CE.  How many times was it copied and changed prior to the creation of  that document?  We'll never know.  We can take Ehrman at his word about errors in hand-copied manuscripts as he is an expert on the documents....even if he sometimes gets a little too worked up about what is in them as can be seen in the video posted next.

[Minimalist]

Bart Ehrman getting excited.

[Rhythmcs]

The earliest extant manuscript of the First Apology dates to around 1375 CE.  How many times was it copied and changed prior to the creation of  that document?  We'll never know.  We can take Ehrman at his word about errors in hand-copied manuscripts as he is an expert on the documents....even if he sometimes gets a little too worked up about what is in them as can be seen in the video posted next.

Later dates for any of it just mean that even later christians were still grappling with those items.  

-and ofc they were, because this kept happening everywhere they went as they expanded through europe.  The natives rarely welcomed them as honest liberators.  I think if we were going to put a date on the end of any critical period (or the end of external criticism deemed worthy to respond to) it would be during saint tommys life.  The "everyone understands this to be god" bit suggests a monolithic opinion not present in earlier apologetic texts which acknowledged a diversity of opinions* about god, jesus and christ even if only to dismiss them.

*perhaps in straw form, later than alleged, unsolicted, etc etc etc

[Minimalist]

Another church myth, there.  That pious missionaries went through the world converting each peasant they came across.  In fact, the church didn't give a flying fuck about the peasants.  The converted the various kings or chiefs who then told their respective tribes that "you are now christians."  Even though none of them had any idea what the fuck that meant.

[Rhythmcs]

Granted, they were mostly trying to rationalize this for themselves. A failed project.

[pattylt]

Another church myth, there.  That pious missionaries went through the world converting each peasant they came across.  In fact, the church didn't give a flying fuck about the peasants.  The converted the various kings or chiefs who then told their respective tribes that "you are now christians."  Even though none of them had any idea what the fuck that meant.

Well, they did get a bath out of it.

[Rhythmcs]

Right around the 12th century (possibly earlier) we're told a bunch of nuns started lighting fires to saint brigid. As it so happens brigid the saint of the 12th century is a carbon copy of brigid the goddess of the 9th century. This according to gerald of wales and cormacs glossary - both christian sources. Both associated with holy wells all over the place...where people leave little ribbons for healing. They stole the magic baths too.

So there we have another example of mythicism in action - they didn't stop with christ.

[Cavebear]

Right around the 12th century (possibly earlier) we're told a bunch of nuns started lighting fires to saint brigid.  As it so happens brigid the saint of the 12th century is a carbon copy of brigid the goddess of the 9th century.  This according to gerald of wales and cormacs glossary - both christian sources.  Both associated with holy wells all over the place...where people leave little ribbons for healing.  They stole the magic baths too.

So there we have another example of mythicism in action - they didn't stop with christ.

Christianity copied from older religions constantly. Jesus was just Mithras re-purposed, for example, and Noah's Flood was not an original idea either. They copied Easter and Christmas from others (even the evergreen trees). Anything to over-write the local religious events. LOL!

[Rhythmcs]

Talk about over writing local religious events...was John Frum ever a real person? No. He was a god before he was John From America. Nevertheless, as recently as 07 a chief of the movement party which had established a ritual army called the T-A USA and built mock airfields and docks to lure back the savior opposed western modernity and christianity and stated that john frum was their god, their jesus, and would return. Making men of gods and gods of those men is not something unique to christians @ 0 ce or christians @1k ce. People were still doing it, and doing it elsewhere, @2k ce. When we have first hand accounts and video and audio and a public record of the religious event.

Historicists think that if we had that sort of data about christian origins it would reveal a singular historic person. I suspect it would reveal a similar religious event.

[Minimalist]

There is one very significant difference between the very real John Frum story and the far less real stories of jesus, mohammed and moses among many others.

The Polynesians who invented the Cargo Cults had at least seen something they did not understand.  Planes landing and taking off, crates of interesting stuff being unloaded, etc., etc.  Those Cults started while the event was going on.  It did not take anywhere from 40-140 years later to get going.

Many years ago I came across a fascinating mind exercise.  The premise was:  You are a stone-age level hunter in an isolated valley in New Guinea.  While out hunting near the edge of a clearing you hear a strange noise and you see a helicopter landing in the clearing.  You've never seen a helicopter.   Scared shitless, you find a hiding place and watch as a dozen people, all wearing orange uniforms get out and begin doing various tasks.  The helicopter is marked by strange symbols which say "EXXON Advance GeoPhysic Research Unit" and that is merely gibberish to you.

One of these beings is carrying some sort of object and walking around the others who are doing all sorts of strange things with odd devices.  At one point, the one on guard duty stops, raises the object, points it at something and it produces a flash of light and some loud noises.  All the others stop to look at him as he walks over and picks up a dead snake  and holds it up.  The others cheer and go back to what they were doing.  After a few hours, they take all their strange equipment, get back on board the chopper and in a blast of noise, wind, and exhaust fumes they fly back to the heavens.

Your task is to imagine that you go back to your clan and tell the elders what you saw.  Remember, you only have a vocabulary of about 600 words most of which have to do with your immediate environment and group.  You know fuckall about ground-penetrating radar, assault rifles, helicopters, or geophysical testing techniques.  It is not easy to do.

[Rhythmcs]

I think christianity can be understood a similar way, with the same implications for any historical jesus as a polynesian desire for material goods becoming a man from america.

There's no doubt that the early or proto christians witnessed profound social and environmental upheavals in the real world - and that these experiences influenced the way they constructed christian myths.

[Minimalist]

Did they?

They chose to set their story during the Pax Romana.  The first and second centuries CE were the height of Roman power and culture. Even Judaea was quiet until Caligula ( briefly) and later Nero ( to a much greater extent ) stirred things up.  Hollywood has concocted a myth of its own about Roman oppression of the poor little jews.  The fact is that the Romans kept trying to get Herod the Great and his kids to rule that region.  The military issue in the Levant was Syria and that was where the four legions of the Eastern Army were based mainly to keep an eye on Armenia and Parthia.  In 6 CE, Augustus granted a petition by the Jews to remove Archelaus and BECOME a Roman Prefecture.  But Antipas continued to rule his area and Phillip ruled his as client kings.  Eventually phillip died and Antipas was booted out.   It remained that way until Herod Agrippa was made king in 41 by Claudius.  That may well have pissed off some of the Jewish nobility but if you listen to the tale the xtians tell this jesus asshole had been dead for between 5-10 years by then.


Much mythologizing going on in this story but the facts of history call that into question.

[Rhythmcs]

I don't think christianity took off between 6 and 41 ce or in judea. Not that it matters to the historical jesus - since we wont have the alleged source documents for that before at least 100ce...and you'll remind me this is a claim and that we don't actually have those documents themselves. There were other stories. Granted...but lets assume it. Why, going from 100ce, did newly christian authorities and communities favor those narratives where christ was a populist healer in western culture? I think that has more to do with the antonine plagues than a jewish rebellion, so did julian... and fwiw, even his christian apologist and (alleged) transcriber agreed.

[Minimalist]

I'll get back to that Rythmics.

Right now, I have this on my clipboard and have to post it.

In On The History of Jesus, Richard Carrier demonstrates how a unique tale in Luke is merely a plagiarized version of the original tale from the foundation mythology of Rome. 

I'll close with one more example of this, the Emmaus narrative of Luke 24, a resurrection-appearance tale found in no other Gospel and thus distinctive of Luke's style of invention. Here Luke tells the story of a man named Cleopas (along with an unnamed friend) who journeys by road from Jerusalem to nearby Emmaus, after they learn the corpse of Jesus has vanished. On the way, the resurrected Jesus appears to them (albeit in disguise) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (which happens to be a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one), then vanishes, and Cleopas recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told.

 

Conveniently, the name Cleopas means 'tell all', in other words, 'proclaim'.  The story thus has several telltale markers of myth: a name invented or selected for its meaning to the tale rather than any historical truth; an absurdly ahistorical narrative (never heard of from any earlier source) of a disguised divine visitor; an unrealistic conversation with a complete stranger; a miraculous vanishing; and an all-too-convenient rhetorical purpose for all of it.

 

Richard Carrier, OTHJ, Pg 480

 

 

But, that is not the point Carrier is making:

 

As it happens, the founding myth of Rome, then famously known

everywhere and celebrated in annual passion plays, is almost the exact same story: a man named Proculus (archaic Latin for 'Proclaimer' or 'He Who Proclaims', thus not only again a fictional name designed for the story but essentially the same name as Cleopas) journeys by road from nearby Alba Longa to Rome, after the Roman people learn the corpse of Romulus has vanished; and on the way, the resurrected Romulus appears to him (not in disguise but this time in glorious form) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (literally: how to conquer and rule the world), then ascends into heaven (as Luke eventually has Jesus do as well), and Proculus recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told. I've already demonstrated the extent to which the Gospels have borrowed this Romulan resurrection tale for Jesus (see Chapter 4, §1, and Element 47). Mark had already fashioned his passion account in light of it, and Matthew embellished it even more in accord. So it is not unexpected that Luke would take the same model further.

 

Ibid. Page 481

Xhristards of course will try to claim that the tales are completely different because Proculus was going TO Rome whereas Cleopas was going FROM Jerusalem....which is exactly the kind of grasping at straws one would expect from those fools.  But the fact that Luke borrowed from the Romulus/Remus myth is clear.

Sucks to be them.

[Minimalist]

I don't think christianity took off between 6 and 41 ce or in judea.  Not that it matters to the historical jesus - since we wont have the alleged source documents for that before at least 100ce...and you'll remind me this is a claim and that we don't actually have those documents themselves.   There were other stories.  Granted...but lets assume it.  Why, going from 100ce, did newly christian authorities and communities favor those narratives where christ was a populist healer in western culture?  I think that has more to do with the antonine plagues than a jewish rebellion, so did julian... and fwiw, even his christian apologist and (alleged) transcriber agreed.

No of course not.  As I said, for whatever reason, they CHOSE to set their story in the early first century.  One could speculate on a lot of reasons for it but dismissing the unlikely possibility that any of that shit happened I'll go with the  prefecture of Pilate was long enough ago that there could be no inconvenient witnesses to say "what the hell are you talking about....there was no one like that in Jerusalem or Galilee!"  It really doesn't matter.  It was far enough back that the gospel writers forgot that when they had people going from "Nazareth" to Bethlehem for a non-existent census those two towns were in different countries.  

The jews were undoubtedly cast as the villains in the gospels while the only Roman depicted with any degree of detail was Pilate who was shown to be an indecisive wimp.  That does not mesh with the two historical accounts we have of him, one by Josephus who was born shortly after Pilate was recalled or Philo of Alexandria who was a contemporary of Pilate's and thus his letter to Gaius (Caligula) would be a primary source for Pilate.  Those two sources indicate that Pilate was a ruthless bastard and while Josephus can never really be trusted when talking about bloodshed his exaggerations do not totally dismiss the events themselves.

I lean more toward a mid 2d century creation date for the jesus myth.  There is no indication that the Romans had any idea of a distinction between jews and christians....if they were even called that at the time... by then.  But what had happened in the lead up to to say 140 CE?  There had been three Jewish revolts...most people only think of two but there was another which began in
about 115 as the Diaspora Revolt in Jewish communities across the Eastern Empire.  Oddly, at the beginning the Jews in Judaea decided that their asses were still hurting after the Great Revolt and the wanted to sit  that one out.  Because of the timing of the outbreaks in widely separated communities there was a suspicion that the Jews were collaborating with the Parthians who were having a tough time with Trajan's campaign to conquer Mesopotamia.  He succeeded but it ultimately was  not worth holding and Hadrian who succeeded him withdrew from the region.  The revolts in the East were crushed by General Quietus and in Egypt and Libya by Marcius Turbo.  Sources get a little vague but it seems that survivors from Turbo's attack fled east to Judaea where they ran in Quietus' army moving west.  They were crushed but participation of Jews from Judaea seems to have been minimal.

Then in 135 the Bar Kohkba Revolt broke out and was violently surpressed and that seems to have been the end of the line for the Romans.  The jews were kicked out of Judaea and Jerusalem's ruins were leveled and the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina built on top of it.

At this point, if there were xtians in Judaea I can see where they might suddenly say "Hey, we're not jews...we're xtians.  Go pick  on them,not us."  In any case it is right around this time that we start to hear of this jesus character.  No Roman writer ever heard of  him as far as we can tell before Celsus around 180.  And he didn't think much of the jews or the xtians.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Note these quotes from Celsus:

"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put out faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

Again, if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this Spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? He ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?

[Rhythmcs]

I'd say so as well. Between 150 and 350. I'll give you a block quote and a link to a book I enjoyed.

Chapters 1 to 4 approach the context of Julian’s apostasy, which was the unexpected turning point of his religious thought. In spite of the ambivalence of Constantine the Great, Christianity had finally reached the imperial court; however, Julian gave up Christianity secretly as soon as 351, but he did not make public his paganism until the death of his kinsman and rival Constantius II in November of 361. And yet, as Teitler states, especially striking is the fact that once Julian became sole emperor he tried to found a pagan church with special concern for the sick and the poor. Nevertheless, the author argues, it seems that it was his permissive attitude against pagan violence that brought about more negative reactions from Christians. It is exceedingly remarkable how Julian already realized that “it was through poor relief and charity that the ‘Galilaeans’ had won many adherents” (29), precisely a theme to which Peter Brown has dedicated a recent trilogy. 1 And, as Julian would be aware of, it was a bishop’s task to express concern about charitable works as, in Rapp’s words, “a patron of the poor and needy,” a philanthropy that was also assumed by him. 2

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.03.20/

We have one of the elites who had been groomed since birth and fallen away blaming the apathy of his fellow elites in the state for the rise of the populist wing of that same movement he considered ignorant, superstitious, and hypocritical, and would move to defeat. Shame he failed.

We're still having exactly the same arguments with christian nuts in politics to this very day. The last few decades of that period are, imo, the most informative as to which christ myth we went with, which would end up forming the candidate details for a historical jesus.

[Minimalist]

What most people fail to grasp, again largely because of Hollywood myth-making, is that  Constantine did not make jesusism the official religion of the empire.  What he did was grant religious toleration to all...a somewhat advanced way of thinking for a thug like Constantine.  I'm sure he had political reasons for it.

Any way, from the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, had fortunately met near Mediolanum (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought that, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and to all others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred ; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, or of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. 

  

In effect, Milan reversed the actions of Diocletian who was one of the few Roman Emperors who ever persecuted the fucking xtians.

But the disease of jesusism spread to the imperial family and they got worse and worse as religitards in control of anything are prone to do.  They got a little arrogant or a lot arrogant.  Bottom line it scared the shit out of them when Julian came along and showed how easily their illusion of power could be swept away.  Julian died in battle and from then ( 361) to the Edict of Thessalonika in 380 the restored xtian rulers worked tirelessly to do away with their competition. Theodosius completed the job and plunged the Roman world into 1,300 years of darkness and murder in the name of his loving god.

Thanks for the link.