NEW Research CRUCIFIES Jesus Mythicism

In today’s stream, we dive into the debate of Jesus Mythicism, which suggests that Jesus never actually existed as a historical person in first-century Palestine. Joining us are Kamil Gregor and Chris Hansen, who will present brand new research to determine which makes more sense: that Jesus was entirely a myth, or that a historical figure named Jesus existed and was mythologized. Tune in for a fascinating exploration of these compelling theories!



Subscribe to our second channel
@mythvisionTV


SIGN UP FOR RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE

Kipp Davis: Real Ancient Israelite Religions -
Richard Carrier: New Testament Studies For Everyone -
Dale C. Allison Jr: The Quest For The Historical Jesus -

SIGN UP FOR BART EHRMAN COURSES BELOW:




Please support MythVision by joining the Patreon or making a one-time donation through the links below:

Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9

👉👉 Check out MVP Courses for new and upcoming online courses:


#mythvision #Mythicism #Mythology #Religion

[suuupsuuupswgoh]

If Jesus was a historical figure but we know nothing about the historical figure then to me there’s no big difference between that and a mythical character. To me this debate is almost irrelevant.

[johnrichardson]

This is the silliest debate ever. The difference between a totally made up person vs a historical person about whom we have a bunch of made up stories is a thin one indeed

[kwamemaatranyame-mentuhote]

3:59:31 so the current evidence for Jesus are either forgeries or highly problematic & we should trust your theory on the historical Jesus ?

[beegee]

Whether Jesus existed or not really doesn’t matter. The resurrection is the part that rational people know is mythological - that is what matters!

[bobyoung]

What I dislike about these presentations is that the primary focus is debunking Carrier. I think a better approach is for them to explain why thier methodology is better instead of just claiming consensus.

[waltonsmith]

Im not convinced that the Jesus of the Gospels was a real dude.

[davidchamberlain]

Correction: at 7:37, Kamil says "I am currently doing my PhD in classics, which is the same qualification Carrier has." Richard Carrier's PhD is in ancient history.

[Marabarra]

i don't see any evidence for a historical Jesus.
just some work of Carriër has been refuted.
i was hoping for more.

[tim]

If we decide that the Rank-Raglan part of Carrier's argument is flawed and we throw it out, the rest gives a probability of historicity of around 50%, right? The promise in the title of OHJ claiming we have reason to doubt is still fulfilled. Having everything else cause negligible net movement in the probability is disappointing.

[roryreviewer]

I don’t really understand why Derek is so aggressive against the idea of mythicism. I don’t feel like I need to hang my hat conclusively on either position, but surely mythisicm is just as plausible, if not more so, given the lack of evidence available. So why does Derek seem so desperate to go against the idea. You’re not even a Christian, bro. Like why are you so invested in Jesus being a person?

[fixpontt]

i dont understand why this matters, i see no difference between completely ficitonal or having some core real person and bunch of fake stories around him

[johnnybates]

Yeah I'm not buyng it. Its like saying because Luke is mentioned by Han Solo and Princess Leah and George Lucas, mean they are all real because George was a real person.

[johnnehrich]

The idea that Jesus met a bunch of criteria that match other mythical beings suggests, doesn't prove, he too might be mythical. But I don't think the opposite is true. Not meeting these doesn't prove Jesus or anyone else WAS historical. Sherlock Holmes was not claimed to have been born of a virgin, nor any other match. Just means the author was good at avoiding details that would make his creation come across as false.

EVERY argument by Dr. Carrier could be proven wrong but that doesn't prove there was a historical Jesus. I could offer a lot of arguments why I don't think there is a Santa, and if you shot them all down, still doesn't mean there IS a Santa.

The other problem is that we don't really have any evidence other than the NT as to ANY details of Jesus's life. If it was later claimed he came from a virgin birth, it might mean he was mythological or it might simply mean this detail was made up. Seems we are back to square one.

Don't find this discussion "crucifying" mythicism. Might have given it a paper cut or two, at most.

[davidbennett]

Derek's grandstanding at about 42 minutes in is a bit silly. He hasn't checked this, nor has anyone else, at least not anyone beside those peer reviewers. But we have a problem as I see it. This could very well cause problems for the method of prior probability. It might. But that doesn't mean mythicism is crucified. THat's silly. There is so much more to talk about and work through. But that's if I even grant their stated claims here. As I said I looked into their first claimed character and find their evidence completely lacking on that guy. Others? Well, Ahab being scored a 10 would be a stretch anyway...but they don't give us much to reference for their scoring claims on his anyway. Its stuff like "we just think so" or they score 4 points by providing us reason to accept 2 of them. I'm just not going to buy something because I want to, like Derek. There has to be some investigation. Some caution to accept this kind of stuff and chances for responses. Carrier's work has been out for a decade or more and the responses, up until now, have been extremely terrible and largely embarrassing, if you ask me. That's why people still hold to it. You can't simply point to some quality scholarship that gives us good reason for historicity. This obviously comes up short since it's simply an attempt to go after Carrier's prior claims. So please, tone it down. Get some real good work out there first, at least.

[joeyrufo]

Carrier and I don't exactly "get along, " but I would never besmirch his research. When it comes to research, he's my fkn hero lol 🤣

[arthurmair]

I remember mentioning in a comment that the name referred to mythicism and you were like “no, it’s cos we discuss myths and mythology around the world’. Kinda lame only now u choose to own it..

[howaboutataste]

Loads of men named Iesous existed.
What criteria do you use to non arbitrarily designate one of them as the Jesus in the gospels? How close is close enough? Which details of his life matter and which ones don't?

[jasonbishop]

When a researcher needs to lower himself to the "go fuck yourself" standard to make a point, you've lost the argument
Why would any scholar value anything after that comment
Bad move whatever your name is

[abraferrazify]

The community here leans towards mythicism, it appears... hahaha so do I; sorry Chrissy

[thomasb]

In looking at the paper cited (I haven't watched the whole video), the first and main point is the expansion of the Rank Raglan reference class to include mostly ancient Mediterranean historical figures with after 10th century BCE dates:

Agathocles of Syracuse, Ahab son of Omri, Alcibiades, Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, Aratus of Sicyon, Aristotle, Caesar Augustus, Caligula, Claudius, Cleopatra VII, Cyrus the Great, Demetrius I Poliorcetes, Domitian, Galba, Hadrian, Hiero II, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Mithridates VI Eupator, Nero, Otho, Pericles, Plato, Ptolemy I Soter, Pyrrhus I of Epirus, Pythagoras, Solon, Tiberius, Titus, Trajan, Vespasian, Vitellius

One thing I'm looking for is that Carrier put a high number of match points of the 22 criteria in Rank Raglan-- more than half the criteria need to match to be a member and conform to this mythotype in Carrier's approach to establishing a prior. The more criteria met, the more likely the figures are mythical (not just that the stories about them have a few mythical qualities added later). If the match points are lowered, I would expect many more historical figures would likely be swept into the class.

But if what we're reading in the NT has so many match points with mythic storytelling, then just adding in "dramatic date" as one more factor doesn't seem right to me as a way to tilt everything to making Jesus historical.

Depending on which way the data tilts from 50/50, I'm not sure there is enough in the paper to make it shocking if Jesus was actually mythical. The strong tilt towards historicity in the paper seems like it depends on simultaneously downplaying the mythic elements in the NT to make Jesus align with many more historical characters, while at the same time saying that the many mythic story elements are present because a historical Jesus just happened to be highly mythologized.

Given all the data points, I still wouldn't be surprised very much if the Jesus figure was mythical or historical either way. That's how bad the data still is. By mythical I mean a created literary figure but perhaps with biographical elements from actual people, just not all pinned down to one person. Mythicism is a great hypothesis to work with-- for example, when I read Mark, I read it as if the author is treating the celestial savior figure as a literary creation to instruct and sometimes chastise his actual historical believers. I sense the work of someone from a Pauline community, creating this figure to counter the centrality of Peter and some others in the early Christian movement by writing words for this celestial savior to match the views of a particular sect of early Christianity, which appears to me have been a very diverse movement in its early days. Humans are highly creative, but also very susceptible to accepting things as historical without question. The diversity of Christianity today, with followers staunchly believing in the historicity of their particular belief sets (often contradictory), shows to me how beliefs in historicity can take hold and propagate, despite the massive mythical qualities.