Dr. Bruno Bauer's 1879 2nd edition of "Christ and the
Caesars," has recently been reprinted at Xlibris.com

This new English translation has been the multi-decade
project of Byron Marchant, formerly of Salt Lake City,
(whom some of you no doubt remember).

Bauer's premise seems to be that Christianity originated as
a fabricated religion, designed by Seneca-admiring Roman
administrators (or their minions), in an effort to pacify
2nd century rebellious Judeans. In other words, to replace
Messianic Judaism with a Hellenistic religion friendly to
the Roman Empire.

While that explanation may appear simplistic to many modern
investigators, its basic premise has since been adopted and
adapted by numerous historical researchers and writers. Since
Bauer was essentially the originator of this theory (that is,
excluding less developed predecessors such as Edward Gibbon),
his initial writings on the subject (dating back to the 1840s)
deserve the attention of interested historians and would-be
historians of religions.

Who was the first "real" Christian? Where were the first "real"
Christian communities located? Were such biblical figures as
Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas "real" people? Can modern readers
trust the histories of Josephus for accuracy? Even the acclaimed
Jesus Seminar fellows generally agreed that certain parts of the
Christian Bible were late creations, from well after the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple -- but how late? and
what percentage? Half? Three-quarters? All?

I don't know the answers; but Bauer at least offers a starting
point for interested investigators.

The book can be purchased as an e-text for a very small
amount (cheaper than my last coffee at Starbucks). For
those of you reluctant to spend even that much, Google
Books offers an extensive "preview" excerpt for free.

For those of you who can read 19th century scholarly German,
the original text has long been available on-line, here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/1879Baur.htm


Also a table of contents, along with extensive comments, here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/1879BaurEng.htm

Hopefully Byron will eventually provide us permission to
post short excerpts from the English text on the web, and
we can then reproduce and discuss a few of Bauer's more
interesting arguments.

UD

I believe you'll find with a quick examination that this is popular among some fringe Jesus mythicist ideologues, but has little respect from historians.

A major flaw in the theory is that if any evidence whatsoever of the Christian faith can be found to exist prior to the assumed concoction by the Romans, then the theory fails. Anachronisms refute the theory, and there are many.

A similar theory has been advanced by Joseph Atwill among others. Some of Atwill's harshest critics are fellow mythicist atheists. Richard Carrier, one of our favorite mythicists renounces Atwill as a "crank" who is giving the entire "Jesus is myth" position a bad name.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664


And here's more:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-the-romans/

http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2015 12:18AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Exactly. This is very much a fringe theory

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe you'll find with a quick examination
> that this is popular among some fringe Jesus
> mythicist ideologues, but has little respect from
> historians.
>
> A major flaw in the theory is that if any evidence
> whatsoever of the Christian faith can be found to
> exist prior to the assumed concoction by the
> Romans, then the theory fails. Anachronisms
> refute the theory, and there are many.
>
> A similar theory has been advanced by Joseph
> Atwill among others. Some of Atwill's harshest
> critics are fellow mythicist atheists. Richard
> Carrier, one of our favorite mythicists renounces
> Atwill as a "crank" who is giving the entire
> "Jesus is myth" position a bad name.
>
> http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664
>
>
> And here's more:
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/10/joseph-
> atwill-has-not-proven-that-jesus-was-made-up-by-th
> e-romans/
>
> http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com/


Yes -- I'm familiar with Atwill, and his seeming
dependence upon Bauer. I have a bit of that here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/2005Atwl.htm

But my personal interest lies not in defending every
element of some particular writer's theories -- nor
in offering any blanket condemnations.

As I said, my view is that the subject deserves some
consideration, and especially so by ex-Mormons, who
came out of an extensive community in which practically
every authoritative voice testified to the "truth" of
that sect's proffered history.

I would think that such ex-Mormons would be doubly careful
in accepting the consensus opinions regarding any religious
group's supposed true history -- whether it be Scientology
or Zoroastrianism.

As you say, the historical anachronisms developed in any
defense/criticism of a sect's origins are especially
important. That is one of the reasons I'm interested in
determining the earliest authenticated Christian burial.
When I lived in South Asia I visited Goa and was told that
a day's travel to the south would bring me to the tomb of
St. Thomas the Apostle, who died there in the mid-1st
century.

Perhaps that was fact. Probably it wasn't. But, somewhere,
the earliest undisputed Christian grave lies, waiting to
be discussed (and cited as an anachronism, if so) -- THAT
sort of evidence tempts my interest.

Should I withdraw my recommendation for folks to read Bauer,
or does it have enough merit, on its own, for discussion?

UD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2015 12:36AM by dalebroadhurst.

dalebroadhurst Wrote:
> Should I withdraw my recommendation for folks to
> read Bauer,
> or does it have enough merit, on its own, for
> discussion?
>
> UD


I don't wish to limit discussion in any way. I say throw whatever you wish into the arena, and let's have a go at it.

I do believe that if there are verifiable anachronisms (as I understand there are), this would be reason for most inquirers to discount the veracity of the work and not pursue it for what it purports to be.

dalebroadhurst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would think that such ex-Mormons would be doubly careful
> in accepting the consensus opinions regarding any religious
> group's supposed true history -- whether it be Scientology
> or Zoroastrianism.

Well said. As usual, the historicists needed little time (about an hour in this case) to vehemently dismiss even the slightest hint of an opposing view with classic fallacious well-poisoning.

Anyway, I can read German without any problems (although the guy makes excruciatingly long Kantian sentences) so thank you for this interesting link. I'm still stuck at D.F. Strauss but I've bookmarked it for future reference.

rt Wrote:
...
> Well said. As usual, the historicists needed
> little time (about an hour in this case) to
> vehemently dismiss even the slightest hint of an
> opposing view with classic fallacious
> well-poisoning.
>
> Anyway, I can read German without any problems
> (although the guy makes excruciatingly long
> Kantian sentences) so thank you for this
> interesting link. I'm still stuck at D.F. Strauss
> but I've bookmarked it for future reference.


They probably don't still operate in this fashion,
but years ago an Amway salesman came to my door and
offered us some "all-purpose cleaner" at a reasonable
price. I bought the stuff, liked it well enough to
use up the bottle, and next time the guy came by, I
said "Thanks, but no thanks -- I've had all I need."

I don't recall ever buying another Amway product and
I resisted all attempts to entice me into joining their
door-to-door sales group.

For me, at least, it's the same thing when I look into
purported histories of religions. I sample what I can
easily inspect, decide whether or not I want any more;
and, if not -- move on.

Gibbon, Bauer and more recent writers some times raise
thought-provoking questions; and I appreciate having the
opportunity to have my thinking stimulated a little. But
that does not mean that I "buy" them, hook, line & sinker.

It's no secret that the Greeks (and also the Seleucids,
Persians, Romans, etc.) attempted to influence the various
religions opearing throughout their respective realms and
empires. -- But, how much?

It's no secret that large numbers of non-canonical texts
were written as "scripture" which never made it into the
Hebrew and Christian bibles. Some of those writings were,
no doubt, composed as attempts to influence the content
and practice of biblical religion. -- But, how much?

At one time the "doctors of the Church" would have opposed
any notion that some of the canonical NT texts came from
sources other than "The Evangelists and The Apostles."
Today, most informed scholars hold open the possibility
that non-Apostolic sections of the Christian bible do
exist. -- But, how much?

There are those who say that Saul/Paul practically invented
Christianity, transforming a certain Messianic Jewish sect
into a Hellenistic mystery religion. I tend to agree with
that idea -- somewhat. But, how much?

I'm "still stuck" at wondering who Saul really was...

People who tell me that Amway never did market a good
household cleaner are wrong. And people who tell me that
Amway is only the work of evil, designing men are wrong.

The "truth" (such as it may be) lies elsewhere -- perhaps
in the middle ground, between "right" and "wrong;" or maybe
off the beaten track, in places seldom inspected.

I'll "buy" as much of Bauer as seems reasonable to me.

That's all.

UD



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2015 05:44PM by dalebroadhurst.

dalebroadhurst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, at least, it's the same thing when I look
> into
> purported histories of religions. I sample what I
> can
> easily inspect, decide whether or not I want any
> more;
> and, if not -- move on.

What I like about 18th and 19th century writers is their grasp of the classics and of Greek and Roman history. It's not just a topic, it's deeply engrained in their thinking.

Surely we look differently upon that now - every generation needs it's own interpretation of the classics but one would think that people who pride themselves on being historians to the extent that they think that's a argument in itself would at least be able to appreciate a decent classicist at face value.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe you'll find with a quick examination
> that this is popular among some fringe Jesus
> mythicist ideologues, but has little respect from
> historians.

It has evidence problems -- big ones. For parts of it, anyway. That's what makes it overall extremely unlikely...though parts of it can be backed up. The anachronisms mentioned are certainly problematic. But it's those evidence problems that make it unlikely overall, not whether or not it's "respected by historians" :)

I take Richard Carrier's work and statements with a grain a salt. This man want's to take credit for good research, and unless HE did the research, he says you should skeptical of anyone else's work.

Examples here:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Carrier Trashes a Book He Helped Write

In response to Bart Ehrman's ridiculous anti-mythicist book, Did Jesus Exist?, edited and published by ex-American Atheist president and mythicist Frank Zindler: Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Displaying an astonishing lack of class and integrity, Carrier wrote a viciously scathing review of the book for which he himself was PAID to contribute to, as one of 7 authors.

In his petulant review, Carrier remarks:

"I required a disclaimer to be included (in the Foreword generally and in the first paragraph of my chapter specifically), since I do not endorse much of what gets said elsewhere in this book. I was sure of this even before I read it..."


Carrier was so sure that the book would be beneath him, even before reading it, based on what? His abject bigotry and unfounded biases against other people included in it? His deliberate ignorance of other mythicists' work? In either case, his puerile and egotistical behavior is exemplified once again.

Carrier "fanboy" Tommy Verenna aka "Rook Hawkins" felt the need to follow his master and piled on with his own vicious and jealous "review." (Here's more of what Carrier's influence looks like in those who consider him their "hero": Rook Watch (Rook Hawkins/Tom Vern) Smears Acharya S)

Perhaps editor Zindler should ask for that disclaimer money back and do a 2nd edition leaving Carrier out completely? Let this be a fair warning to others in any possible future projects, demonstrating that neither Richard Carrier nor Tom/Rook have the capacity to play well with others, as Carrier will demand to be paid and then write a scathing review dissing all the other contributors. He next tells others not to buy the book, but goes on to instruct his fans who do plan to buy the book to use his link, so he gets a kickback anyway!

Never mind the fact that Zindler's wife of 48 years had just passed away. Carrier & Tom both could have at least waited a few months before pissing all over this response to Ehrman. They could have said a few positive things about the book before blasting it and all the mythicist authors in it. I've said before and I'll say it again, both Carrier and Verenna are an embarrassment to all freethinkers and mythicists everywhere and owe us all an official apology.



If Information Doesn't Come from Carrier, It Can't Be True?!

Unbelievably, the dictatorial Carrier has the nerve to proclaim the following, so astonishing that it bears repeated emphasis:

"The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... So, I say, if you want a simple rule: Basically, if you don't hear it from me, be skeptical of it."
--Richard Carrier

There are plenty of other scholars performing work as good as and often much better than Carrier's, including Murdock. No wonder fellow mythicist Earl Doherty declared that Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus."

It probably goes without saying, that Byron was
a bit surprised at the cool reception his publishing
efforts have recently received on this forum.

After all, it was in response to questions often
raised by ex-Mormons, that he originally began his
work of translating Dr. Bauer's seminal writings
on the subject of New Testament authenticity.

Nevertheless, Byron offers all interested ex-LDS
an opportunity to browse through the conents and
to read a lengthy except of "Christ and the Caesars"
here:
http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-000740888/Christ-and-the-Caesars.aspx

To be clear, this is NOT the 2005 Joseph Atwill book
bearing a similar title, but rather the original 1879
German volume, translated (for the first time) into English.

I hope that a few of the RFM participants will take the
time to at least glance at Mr. Marchant's "Introduction,"
which (as I said) was written primarily for ex-Mormons
who have questioned the reliability of common assumptions
regarding religion, Christianity, and "scriptures."

Best Wishes
UD

HOW can ANY untimely / too early indication of Christianity upset the theory of the New Testament and its purported Messiah being a Roman concoction, when Christianity was invented by retooling / recycling many previously existing myths in order to concoct the New Testament Christian version of a mythological (non existent) god / messiah ???

Any untimely chronological disqualification would have to a have a very specific exclusive previously non existent characteristic that could be identified and pointed out, in an area that was rife with messianic fervor, this equates to proving the non existence something before some point in time which would be very difficult exhaustive process in this instance. That being the case, we are just supposed to throw our hands in the air in surrender and agree that there really was a magical divine man who had the power to raise himself from the dead, and He really does exist and He really is obsessed with love for the human race..... even though he has been absent for 2000 years after pulling off his miracle resurrection for the sake of all mankind.

QUOTE: " For those of you who can read 19th century scholarly German, the original text has long been available on-line, here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/1879Baur.htm "

The 19 th century was not that long ago linguistically, I mean, I can trundle through English that is older than that, so would
not a person who is capable with contemporary German be able to read through German that was merely still shy of being 200 years old ? .........and what would happen if a person used a seer stone on that text ? what would happen if a person tossed that thing into google translate?

I think that it is remarkable that the Flavians, Joseph Smith, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone have all done the same thing -taken an established religion, hijacked it, modified, retooled, and extensively mocked it for their own purposes. Besides that
the Roman creation of the new testament is a solution in perfect harmony with the current Jewish - the keepers of the old testament, sentiment about the new testament = "that ain't part of our deal !!!"

It is comical that Joe Smith and the Flavians did the same things = retroactively created supposed prophecy in their fraudulent writings that included promotions of their own fraudulent writings. These are "marketing" people that understand very well that most humans are ego centric to an insane extent (perhaps because of their huge egos) and have an insane insatiable need to hear what they want to hear, and what they want to hear is that the universe is centered and built on the reflection of their family situation in mortality, AS IF the (incomprehensively vast and immense) universe had nothing better to do.

The Jews, even as goofy as their god is in some of the things that it had them do, never promoted the concept of a god that was based on the human form. It took the Romans to do that, Jesus was a temporary manifestation of god in mortal form, and the idea of that mortal manifest was so outrageous that only a temporary manifestation could be flirted with, which goes a long ways toward explaining why Jesus has been absent for 2000 years since his advent and despite his promise to return, then the MORmONS (Joe Smith) took it (anthopromorphization of god) an as far as possible step further and presented to humanity an embodied eternal Man god of human form and a heavenly nuclear family unit with subsequent mortality based (much smaller) family units that must be preserved through out all time..... by sealing them together with secret handshakes. That is how it turned out when Smith was finally done with his work.

The Romans had a bunch of competing and conflicting anthopromorphized gods, ones that they borrowed in large part/ form from the Greeks. It was just too tantalizing and tempting for the Romans as in the Flavians to recycle a favorite fable and turn the long awaited Jewish messiah into a mortal with enough of a divine heritage that he could raise himself from the dead, just like the story went in so many other versions of
itself. The MORmONS turned that highly concocted mythological messiah character into an even more concocted character of MORmON Jesus -some one who was the first spiritually begotten son of a God of human form before the earth was ever created and some one who could hardly wait to be exclusively begotten again in flesh and blood form to eternally confirm that begotting really is a great splendid deal and the very way of just how things really are supposed to work in a grand eternal begotting familial sense and scheme of things. Oh, and the MORmON version of Jesus -the deified Jewish messiah also has a contractual obligation to make a touring visit to America after His resurrection, before He disappears for 2000 years, with the exception of His cozy visits to Joe Smith in the 1800's to re establish the TRUE version His Church ( which was hopelessly corrupted by those darn Romans), of course. Yah, it all makes perFUCT sense.... to MORmONS !!!