Why Yeshuah is a myth.

Ok... so... heres the thing.

Got into this online conversation about the Jesus myth.

Now this theme gets very caught up on the historicity of Jesus. Which whilst relevent to a degree, is by no means the whole story, and not really that important.

Not by a long chalk.

That there might have been an individual at the origin of the narrative, does not change its mythic status one jot.

We can say the same for Arthur Pendragon, Merlin, Robin Hood, some aspects of the stories originated very much with real people and real stories. They are still myths.

The problem with the Jesus myth, is... its clouded by generations of scholars trying to prove its 100% incontrovertibly true. Scolarship has only recently begun to examine it from a unbiased point of view. Historians for more than 1000 years assumed it was 100% true. By edict on high, the incontrovertible word of 'god'. And here's the inquisition etc should you step out of line.

We cannot understand the myth, unless we understand the history of the myth.

Frankly, on the evidence, I doubt there was a Yeshuah, given how common the name was, there were likely several. With other folks thrown in here and there.

Its also worth understanding the context the narrative of a myth is written in.

Judea...60-70.. ce...nah. It was written in Rome 60-70 ce It was quite a while before it was given the name 'Mark'. A big war brewing in Judea. Lots of refugees and Rome was always  'the' place to be. Money to be earned in Rome.

Carrying with them stories of people they knew, embellished, told from a point of view that served the tellers needs, wants, and desires. Same as every culture on the planet. But not written down at first.

Not scholars, historians, kings, etc.. just ordinary people. Frightened, dispossessed in a strange place, with few friends, slavery lurking everywhere. Trying to make connections with each other.

Someone tells a story about an 'Issa', to perk everyone up, someone else knew an 'Issah' too, he tells his story, the listener has two stories about different 'Issa's', but thinks they are one, and he then tells the story too.

I can't recall any evidence for who actually wrote 'Mark', or if it was a single person, or many. Just for when it was probably written down.

The story represents Roman attitudes ideas as much as Judean ones. The other three narratives, likewise just develop and embelish the ideas to serve factional interests. Adding bits, here and there. Ending up with 'John' when the refugees in egypt decide they want a piece of the action

All the evidence I have seen suggests that the 'sayings,' were collected at the same time. Folklaw basically, 'do unto others', etc..that came at some point after their composition to be attributed to a single source, associated with 'wisdom'.

And Issa/Yeshuah was a quite common name in Judea, almost 'everyman'. The most representative translation into English would be 'John Smith.' With some connotations with 'salvation', since thats what the name Yeshuah means. Not hard to see how that appealed to the slaves.

How the narratives ended up as they are, represents something significant about the people telling them. Just as Arthurian legend tells us about the people telling them. It does not tell us that the story is 'true' in any literal sense at all. I will grant there are other kinds of 'truth', literary and poetic spring to mind, but very mythic truth.

There is then a long history of constantly tweaking the story to fit political agendas up to the present day.

So, even if there was a itinerant preacher in Judea named Yeshuah who ticked off the Romans, and got himself nailed to a lump of wood, he is unlikely to have been the only one, and was an insignificant figure about which we know nothing else. All we have are myths written a long time later, for other reasons about idealised characters, not real people.

The 'historicity' of 'Jesus', is a complete red Herring. Jesus is a myth.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Gods.

Sex objects. (Who to, or to what sex objects, we don't really know)