Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A Final Word on Jesus Mythicism

Just wanted to wrap up with a few closing thoughts...

In one of his comments, James argued that the first Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. This is an issue which I must confess I know very little about. I mean, I don't know of anything in Paul's letters or in Mark (the first gospel) which treat Jesus as completely human. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:27 says that everything is under Christ except God. So it seems that Jesus was viewed as very important and very Godly, but was also treated as distinct from God (and as a lesser being). It seems to me that Jesus would have been viewed similarly to the other sons of God being worshipped in that, who are often called "demigods". I can't be certain of that, it is just my personal opinion.

I think James was also much clearer about the criterion of embarrassment: He is arguing that, given the expectations which were present for the messiah (that he was to be an earthly ruler), it doesn't seem like anyone would make up a character who was the precise opposite of expectation. The Jews wanted an earthly king who would lead them to conquest of other nations. But Jesus is only a peasant, the son of a carpenter. Why would someone invent him? To be clear, the Jesus myth theory would entail that Jesus was originally understood as allegorical, but over time this understanding of Jesus was lost and Christians began to suppose Jesus was an earhtly, flesh and blood person. To understand how this can happen, see my second endnote**.

I think I can confidently say that if the Jesus myth theory ever degenerated into claiming that there was a conspiracy to invent an earthly person I would abandon all thought of it. It would not make any sense to believe that the earliest Christians tried to invent someone who was thought of as a regular, earthly person. The Jesus myth theory which I believe has the most credibility would be the one which states that the first gospels were symbolic tales and that Jesus was originally viewed as more of a spiritual figure. Perhaps not necessarily a God, but most certainly higher than man (see 1 Corinthians 15:27).

The writer of the gospel of Mark could have chosen to present Jesus as a literal earthly king, but outsiders would have immediately known that the story was fictional. You could not have a written a story of Jewish king leading te Jews to victory without people knowing that it was fiction. I think that initiates into early Christianity were supposed to believe that the story was true, and gradually they would be told what it really symbolized*. I think that Mark was faced with a conundrum of having to let his audience know that Jesus was king without giving the game away that this an allegorical tale. His solution was to have the charge against him written as "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26). So this is my conjecture about how this would work under the mythicist theory. I'm not saying it is right, I am simply explaining how I think it would work under the theory.

* Here is what Sallustius wrote:

"We may well inquire, then, why the ancients forsook these doctrines and made use of myths. There is this first benefit from myths, that we have to search and do not have our minds idle.That the myths are divine can be seen from those who have used them. Myths have been used by inspired poets, by the best of philosophers, by those who established the mysteries, and by the Gods themselves in oracles. But why the myths are divine it is the duty of philosophy to inquire. Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike, the stories about the Gods ought to be like the Gods, so that they may both be worthy of the divine essence and make the Gods well disposed to those who speak of them: which could only be done by means of myths.

Now the myths represent the Gods themselves and the goodness of the Gods - subject always to the distinction of the speakable and the unspeakable, the revealed and the unrevealed, that which is clear and that which is hidden: since, just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand.They also represent the activities of the Gods. For one may call the world a myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden. Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy."


** On how a mythical Jesus evolved into a historical one.

Here is Bob Price's description of how Hercules originated as a solar deity but later evolved into a flesh and blood character. Note that I am not claiming Jesus began as a solar deity, I simply want to draw attention to the fact that symbolic myths can later be mistaken for historic truths.

"I find it more natural to suppose, with many myth scholars (among whom I do not number myself, I hasten to add) that raw myths treated stellar entities as direct characters in symbolic myths, but that in subsequent retellings and reinterpretations, the sun, moon, and stars are transformed into anthropomorphic gods and heroes. Hercules must first have been the sun, period. But then people tend to forget that and to imagine that there was a demigod hero names Hercules. One can still sniff out his solar origins from clear vestiges of it, like the lion's mane he wore (the sun's rays), the twelve labors he performed (the zodiac), and the deadly arrows he shot (sunstroke). But you do have to make the connection, because it is no longer overt. Later, a la Euhemerus, people begin thinking of these figures as real historical individuals whose memorable greatness led to their mythic exaggeration. This seems like a realistic reading of the history of mythology to me. So I doubt that any hierarchy in the Church (or Buddhism, etc.) has realized for a long time the origin of their faith and its symbols."

11 comments:

Hambydammit said...

I think James was also much clearer about the criterion of embarrassment... The Jews wanted an earthly king who would lead them to conquest of other nations. But Jesus is only a peasant, the son of a carpenter. Why would someone invent him

Not like... Moses... or anything...
cause... he was totally real, and born of humble beginnings, and escaped a king... and...

hmmm...

Nope. Embarrassment still doesn't wash with me. I think it's special pleading.

I think I can confidently say that if the Jesus myth theory ever degenerated into claiming that there was a conspiracy to invent an earthly person I would abandon all thought of it.

Isn't that What Achyara S. claims? There are kooks on both sides. There is no doubt.

So this is my conjecture about how this would work under the mythicist theory. I'm not saying it is right, I am simply explaining how I think it would work under the theory.

I haven't heard it expressed exactly that way. I have no idea what the mythicist community would say about it, but I do wonder how you arrived at the conclusion of Mark's intent. Isn't it also possible that Mark never intended his book to be a new religion? I mean, it's a pretty transparent allegory, and it would seem to me that most semi-literate hellenized Jews would recognize the themes.

So I doubt that any hierarchy in the Church (or Buddhism, etc.) has realized for a long time the origin of their faith and its symbols."

I've always thought that many of the theories of Jesus -- on both sides of the debate -- have assumed too much about both the author's intent and the reader's incredulity. I'm not trying to make an argument for anything in particular. I'm pointing out that I haven't seen a good argument that hasn't seemed rather presumptuous in its assumptions. First century Palestine was not homogenous, and we know precious little about it from a socio-anthropological point of view.

Hambydammit said...

hmm... I should add that I realize the bit about escaping a king was a later addition to the gospel. My point is that humble beginnings are not new to Jewish myth, and in fact, they're a hallmark of good literature around the world.

Hell, Dungeons & Dragons made a fortune by allowing kids to make mythic characters start from humble beginnings and become gods. It's the dream of the humble everywhere. Why in the world would it surprise us that poor people liked it when one of their own became king?

AIGBusted said...

Hey Hamby,

Yeah I think that the fact that God uses the weak things of this world to do great things would be very appealing to the Jewish people. So that's one reason.

And Yes, Acharya S is a conspiracy theorist, and a good example of the type of theory that mythicists need to stay far, far away from.

Did Mark intend to start a new religion? I don't know. His gospel was probably written 20 or more years after Paul's letters, so I would say that Christianity was up and running by then. This would have simply been a cult document.

Hambydammit said...

Did Mark intend to start a new religion? I don't know. His gospel was probably written 20 or more years after Paul's letters, so I would say that Christianity was up and running by then. This would have simply been a cult document.

I don't think I'm comfortable saying that Christianity was up and running by the time Mark was written. I prefer to say that the diverse elements that would later become Christianity were up and running, but I believe all the evidence points to a number of similar mystery cults, not a unified religious force.

Honestly, I'm baffled by the argument from embarrassment. It seems to prove the opposite of what McGrath intends -- at least when it is compared with other literary heroes the world over. Rising from nothing to greatness is one of the most common themes in the world! Particularly taking into account the somewhat diminished status of Jews in the new Roman society (at least in their own eyes... I know this is a matter of some scholarly contention) I'd say the idea of a savior rising from embarrassment to total victory is a perfect metaphor for first century Jews.

AIGBusted said...

Well, I'd give the argument from embarrassment a little more credit. I think that IF Jesus was intended to be portrayed a real historical person the argument from embarrassment could be taken seriously. In fact, if the earliest christians were trying to portray Jesus as a historical person (and there was no allegory in some or all of his life) I would probably take their word for it that there was at least some guy named Jesus. But it doesn't seem to me that they were trying to portray Jesus this way.

Hambydammit said...

I think I get what you're saying, but how many politicians can you think of who have tried to portray themselves as having grown up in poverty when the reality was quite different? Even when portraying a real person, it's always a good selling point for the common man if the protagonist comes from the same beginnings as them.

AIGBusted said...

I totally understand what you're saying. I remember reading a book called "Lies" by Al Franken that talked about how Bill O'Reilly lied and said he was from a small town and a working class family when in reality he had grown up rich. It's obvious why he did it: The common man respects someone who is like himself (Not born with a silver spoon in his mouth).

The same principle makes sense of many things in Jesus' life.

However, I think McGrath's argument is slightly different since it centers on what most Jews at the time were expecting of a messiah. Whether rich or poor, a made up messiah would have most likely been a king and a conqueror.

However, I argue that Christians chose to interpret a lot of OT scriptures figuratively. This wasn't just an ad-hoc solution to help Jesus fulfill the criteria of the messiah. They genuinely had a different take on things that tended toward allegory and symbolism. My last comment on the previous Mythicist thread shows that, I believe.

Anebo said...

So, you're claiming that Mark was familiar with sophisticated Stoic theories of allegorical interpretation of myth, and composed a purposefully allegorical myth? That a man who barely knew Greek (his language is filled with grammatical errors based on Aramaic and does not contain any sophisticated Greek grammar such as the optative), nevertheless created a purposefully allegorical fictional myth, a feat which we otherwise associate only with Porphyry of Tyre, the most learned man of the third century (he wrote such a myth for to celebrate Plato's birthday one year at Plontinus' school)? And what about the evidence independent of Mark (Paul and the saying's collections such as Q and Thomas)? As for your idea that early Christians were recruited only from the God Fearers, how do you explain the existence of a Christian community within the temple prior to 70, attested not only by Paul, but by Josephus? I could go on, but that is sufficent illsutration. I would say that this incredible mishandling of evidence is denialism. You don't want Jesus to exist, therefore he doesn't and you twist things around however you wish.

Don't forget where this criticism is coming from: on the one hand, my sympathies are entirely with Greek and Roman religion, while on the other I loath the kind of anti-intellectual fundamentalist Christians who have lately puffed up the fantasy of creationism. If one could undercut the whole thing by demonstrating Jesus never existed no one would be happier than me, but its just not possible to do and maintain any kind of intellectual honesty or methodological rigor.

Now please feel free to prove me wrong--write up your ideas in an article and submit it to The Harvard Theological Review; let the scrutiny of peer review separate the wheat from the chaff--the same thing that is to be told to creationists, the mercury militia and other cranks.

AIGBusted said...

Anebo, if you drop me an email I will be more easily able to send you material about Jesus mythicism.

Keep in mind that I have only claimed to be agnostic about the historical Jesus, I only think that the myth theory (when formulated correctly) is plausible.

As the for the peer review process, Earl Doherty published a summary of his theory in The Journal of Higher Criticism, Bob Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar, and many scholars are now working on "The Jesus Project" which is a secular attempt to discover whether Jesus existed and who he was. Lots of PhD's are participating in that.

Anyway, drop me a line and we can talk about this a little more:
Ryansarcade@yahoo.com

Hambydammit said...

However, I think McGrath's argument is slightly different since it centers on what most Jews at the time were expecting of a messiah. Whether rich or poor, a made up messiah would have most likely been a king and a conqueror.

I understand that this is the argument. I'm just at a loss to understand how it is a valid argument. Why is it most likely? To what fact of human psychology are we linking this claim? We don't just get to say, "It's likely that people would do X." We have to say, "It's likely that people would do X because of A, B, C, principles of psychology, examples from history, and rebuttals of alternative explanations."

In other words, it's just a bald assertion, not an argument.

Steven Carr said...

'He is arguing that, given the expectations which were present for the messiah (that he was to be an earthly ruler), it doesn't seem like anyone would make up a character who was the precise opposite of expectation.'

Paul, of course, wrote not one single word explaining how Jesus could still be the Messiah, despite not being an earthly ruler.

And, of course, Christian apologists like NT Wright produce entire books devoted to the idea that Christians preached and taught that Jesus WAS the earthly ruler, and that Caesar was not the real earthly ruler.

But then mainstream Biblical studies is a horrible mass of self-contradiction.