If this mythological creation came from just one source I might concede your point, but if this were a compilation of various mythologies from various sources from various times then such an awkward mish-mash is all but guaranteed.
Agreed, which is why close reading of the primary source documentation as well as the construction of theories that can be evaluated with evidence is necessary.
If it’s a mish-mash, there will be multiple traceable antecedents.
That said, I wouldn’t expect a mish-mash to have a lot of things that are unflattering to the prophet or that need to be explained away. Hercules doesn’t have a myth where he lost to a 90 pound weakling-- but that was because Zeus demanded it. Zeus didn’t deliver thunderbolts – which of course wouldn’t work on alternate Tuesdays. What they have are various strong man stories glomming on to Hercules and a Pantheon made up of lots of local gods.
Incidentally, Diogenes the Cynic was agnostic with regards to the mythicist position and I no longer find it risible. That said, I have found myself unpersuaded by the limited evidence that I’ve seen on this board.
IMO the strongest evidence that Jesus actually lived are the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They are completely different, and they contradict each other, as well as secular history and common sense, so they were obviously fabricated by the authors, independently.
And yet, they both have the same purpose, namely to explain why the Messiah is called “Jesus of Nazareth,” rather than “Jesus of Bethlehem.”
They would have no reason to do that if there hadn’t been a man called “Jesus of Nazareth.”
There are ‘two’ Hercules in ancient narratives, IIRC. That said, Hercules was said to have murdered his own children, which isn’t very glamorous. I think that could fit in with the criteria of dissimilarity. I don’t find that criteria very convincing.
I’m sort of this way myself. I do not find the historical evidence for Jesus particularly strong and I find many Christian claims towards historicity WAY overblown. That said, I do not find the mythicists arguments very compelling. It’s possible, sure, but I think that it’s more likely that there was a historical figure - it seems the easier explanation.
Really? I’m not sure how to take that. Both those narratives seem completely made up (well, based on the OT) to force fit a Davidic line.
Initially I was going to say something different with regard to this, but looking back, that does seem an interesting point. Initially I had thought it was simply to fulfill prophecy. I looked the term up in wikipedia and that doesn’t seem to be the case (at least not clearly anyway).
That said, there does seem to be some precedent for it, so the early church could have seen something in the term. I’d say, over all, it would point, weakly, towards a historical Jesus. I’d have to see what the mythicists arguments would be.
I agree that there is some evidence, but I think that a historian would like to see a little corroboration that Paul was thinking of a biological relationship when he called the James in Galatians 1:19 “the brother of the lord.” Luke/Acts doesn’t identify this James as Jesus’ brother and it drops Mark’s reference to Jesus having a sibling named James. At the points a biological brother named James is mentioned,* i.e.*, Matthew, Mark, and Josephus, there is nothing to indicate he ever became the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem. “James” was a pretty common name at the time and I think we would want a little more evidence to be confident that the same person is being referenced in Mark 6 and Galatians 1.
Given the success that Christianity enjoyed among the poor and disenfranchised of the day, I would say that these elements in the story were in fact excellent ways to attract followers. Rubbing the mainstream the wrong way seems to have been a large part of the new religion’s appeal. What looks like a bug to us may in fact have been a feature.
I would also add that many 19th century Protestants were rubbed the wrong way by idea that additional books of scriptures were buried in the ground in western New York state for centuries. Nevertheless, there are nearly 14 million Mormons in the world today and I don’t see that as any reason to believe in the historicity of the Golden Plates and the Angel Moroni.
I actually agree that the fact that the Messiah was thought to be from a one horse town like Nazareth is one of the stronger bits of evidence pointing towards a historical Jesus. I just don’t think that it quite tips the scales. Just as one might have Jesus hang out with nobodies in order to make the character appealing, one might have him come from an insignificant place. I don’t think that we can eliminate the possibility that a story element was invented just because we don’t fully appreciate the author’s thinking.
Parts of the Gospel that make little sense as fiction, suggesting they’re intended as truthful history. The vague allusions to Jesus’ lover(s) qualify, as does Mark Chapter 10, verse 46:
Why mention a visit to Jericho, but say nothing about it? (The verse reads differently in an alleged older version of Mark, on the validity of which I have no opinion.)
Why is it any more likely that such a detail would have been remembered as history? I think we have to allow for the possibility that anything we find in the gospels was told and retold multiple times in the oral tradition for purposes of propagating faith in the risen Christ. I don’t think that there can be any doubt that lots of historical details would have been dropped from stories if they didn’t help to make any theological point. I think that this is the Catch 22 for this type of argument. If a detail is preserved in the gospels, that is in itself some evidence that it served some theological point which in turn could have provided a motive for the author to have invented it even if we might not fully see what theological significance it had for him.
Aren’t you assuming what you’re trying to prove here?
Were the stories in David McCullough’s Truman all chosen to give us a one-sided view of that great President? Maybe so – I’ve wondered about this myself 
.
Still, I cite clues the biographer (Gospel-writer) was honest and you start with the assumption he avoids telling the whole truth.
(Of course we all ignore the Nativity fictions, which were mostly grafted on later.)
If everything we knew about Truman came from McCullough’s book, we might have a very difficult time determining whether he is presenting the evidence fairly or not. Luckily we have access to his sources as well as other biographies of Truman written from other perspectives. We might also use McCullough’s other books to get some idea of his general reliability.
With the Gospel of Mark, we just don’t have much to work with and the fact that we don’t see why a particular element was included doesn’t seem to me to be a very strong reason to conclude that it ***must ***reflect some historical event. It’s possible of course, but I don’t think that we don’t know nearly enough about the author or the context in which he was writing to do much more than speculate.
TonySinclair’s point, which seems to me a good one, is that if you were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch, you would EITHER have him born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah coming from the House of David, or you would have him coming from the Boondocks, to show that this was not the expected Messiah. Having him come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem via some insanely contrived circumstances suggests that the authors had something they felt they needed to explain away.
The interactions between Jesus and John the Baptist are similar evidence for a real Yeshua ha Nazareth. If you were making the story up you would not necessarily have your Messiah be recognized by another, well-known Messianic figure who had his own followers.
Have you noticed that none of the gospels are consistent as to the birth, they also get major facts wrong or are incompatible, exactly like the story had been made up. E.G. people having to travel to the home of their long dead relatives.
John the Baptist makes complete sense if you were looking to seed your cult with their followers.
If*** I ***were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch knowing what I know, I would probably do a lot of things differently. No doubt, however, there would be people who would second guess me in the same way that Matthew and Luke second guessed Mark’s decisions to make Nazareth Jesus’ home. However, if my story had already caught on, the second guessers might have to resort to some insane contrivance in order to get in the elements they liked.
The big problem I see is in reading our perspective back into the circumstances in which Mark was writing. Mark may not have seen the Bethlehem prophecy as important. He may have thought that having John the Baptist recognize Jesus made some theological point. What we think important could be much different from what Mark thought important.
I say we need to do some careful historical investigation at this point. My understanding is that early Christians were disproportionately represented from the upperwardly mobile classes, and not the riff-raff. (Cite: PBS: From Jesus to Christ). Frankly in a 19th- 21st century context, fighting the man looks like a real crowd-pleaser. But consider the backflips that Luke goes through to show that Jesus’ teachings were in fact compatible with being a good Roman citizen.
Meatros: I’d like to see a detailed study of such luminaries as John Frum and Philip Nolan, fictional men who were believed to have existed within the past 200 years. That might permit us to contrast some of the characteristics of mythical humans vs. historical ones. The Jesus mythicists have some more work to do.
I’ve read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on “eyewitness testimony.”) One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I’m a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)
They lost me when they referenced a fictional christian conversion by Lincoln, if they can not get 150 year old history correct I have a hard time believing their arguments on Jesus, he died an Agnostic.
Just to clarify: I was NOT citing that URL as a good source. It was simply the only usable Google hit that turned up for me containing quotes by reputable scholars like Sherwin-White.
(Color me old-fashioned … or perhaps just old … but most of my limited knowledge comes from printed books!)
What do you mean by the ‘early christians’? This notion goes against what I’ve read, that the first hundred + years Christianity appealed to women and the poor, which is cataloged in Carrier’s “Not the impossible faith”.
IMO, what we see with early Christianity is that it was initially preached to the Jews, who rejected it and then as a reaction to that the gospels (and further writings) sought to appeal to the gentiles.
I would say that I think John Frum is a fictional person - but I do think there was a historical kernal behind the person, maybe an incident or something. That said, I completely agree with you with regard to what the Jesus mythicists have to do.
That doesn’t really even make sense. An incident might have slight variety, but when you compare the earliest gospels, you get resurrection appearances in some and not in others (ie, the ending of Mark). You get virgin birth sin some and not in others. This isn’t simply mistaking the number of people there.
Further, the gospels are not eye witness accounts.
Finally, on what basis could you say that it was inauthentic?
Be careful, any bible study group will call itself “scholars”.
That will not say if they are actually academic bible-historians nor if they are really knowledgeable about ancient History.
Especially apologists will call anybody that supports their theistic views with bible quotes a “scholar”.
Exactly. When inconsistencies are pointed out experts are brought forth to show that inconsistencies are evidence for authenticity. When consistencies are brought forth experts are brought forth to show that consistencies are also evidence for authenticity. What does it take to falsify this baby?