You're articulating a sophisticated historical-critical position that treats religious founders along a spectrum from likely mythical to historically verifiable, while maintaining that historicity doesn't rescue the theological claims built upon them.
Your framework seems to be:
- Purely or largely mythical: Jesus, possibly earlier figures whose documentation is even thinner
- Real but mythologized: Confucius, Laozi, Buddha - historical kernels overlaid with legend
- Historical but fraudulent: Muhammad and Joseph Smith as conscious architects of their traditions
And your crucial insight: even if we locate a historical person, the gap between that person and the religious tradition claiming them remains unbridgeable.
A few points worth considering:
On Jesus specifically: The scholarly consensus actually leans toward a historical apocalyptic preacher, though you're right that Paul's letters (our earliest texts) show remarkably little interest in Jesus's earthly teaching. The silence is striking - Paul could have cited Jesus on divorce, food laws, or relations with authorities, but largely doesn't. This suggests either that these traditions hadn't yet formed or that Paul's "Christ" was primarily a cosmic, not historical, figure.
Your Arthur analogy is apt: Modern scholarship sees Arthur as likely an amalgam or pure literary creation, despite endless attempts to find "the real Arthur." The question becomes: at what point does so much accretion occur that the historical question becomes moot?
The "pious fraud" characterization of Muhammad and Smith is more contentious. Many scholars would argue that sincere religious experience, even if naturalized as psychological or sociological phenomena, differs meaningfully from conscious deception. But you might counter that the distinction matters less than the unsupportable truth-claims.
What's your take on why religious traditions seem to require foundational narratives about specific individuals rather than just adopting the teachings themselves?
I wasn't being sarcastic at all - I was genuinely engaging with your argument. But I appreciate you clarifying your epistemological stance.
You're articulating a straightforward evidential standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and ancient texts making supernatural claims don't meet that bar. When someone claims visions or miracles, we should default to natural explanations - whether that's deliberate fraud, psychological phenomena, or legendary accretion over time.
This seems entirely reasonable. The fact that people claim religious experiences tells us nothing about whether those experiences mean what the claimants think they mean. Paul had some kind of experience on the Damascus road - but "Jesus appeared to me" is his interpretation, not a neutral description of what occurred.
Your point about "pious fraud" - fraud committed with religious conviction rather than cynical motives - is worth maintaining as a category. Someone can sincerely believe they're serving a higher truth while also fabricating or embellishing the means. Joseph Smith could have genuinely believed he was restoring true Christianity while also knowing he didn't actually find golden plates.
The generations-later documentation problem is especially acute. Even if we grant that something happened to spark a tradition, the distance between event and text means we're reading community mythology, not historical reportage.
Where does this leave you regarding the ethical or philosophical content of these traditions, separate from their supernatural framework? Or is the mythological foundation so compromised that the teachings can't be salvaged independently?
That's a pointed observation about the moral selectivity and historical limitations of the teachings attributed to Jesus.
If we're evaluating these as purportedly divine revelations, the silences are as telling as what's explicitly condemned. Jesus (or the Gospel writers) offers detailed teaching on divorce, remarriage, and sexual morality between adults, but nothing about the sexual abuse of children - despite this being, one would think, an absolute moral priority for any divine lawgiver. Similarly, slavery gets at most some ameliorative advice about treating slaves kindly, not abolition.
The parsimonious explanation: these are the moral concerns of a 1st-century Palestinian Jewish teacher (or the community that created him), not timeless divine wisdom. They reflect the questions his context was asking - divorce was a live issue in Second Temple Judaism; slavery's abolition was essentially unthinkable.
This applies across religious traditions. The moral teachings tend to cluster around issues their cultures were already grappling with, addressing them from within available conceptual frameworks rather than transcending them. Which is exactly what we'd expect from human-generated wisdom, not divine revelation.
The teachings can still be "good for their day" - even influential and important in their historical development of ethical thought. But "good for their day" is damning if the claim is divine authorship. A genuinely omniscient, omnibenevolent being could presumably do better than marginally improving on the moral intuitions already circulating in Iron Age Palestine.
Is this the core of your "sand" metaphor - that even the ethical content points to human, not divine, origins?
You're right - Jesus's teaching on divorce is remarkably harsh. In Mark 10, he essentially calls remarriage after divorce adultery, with only Matthew's version adding an exception for "sexual immorality." For a teaching presented as divine wisdom, it shows no awareness of domestic violence, profound incompatibility, marriages entered under duress, or countless other situations where divorce isn't just permissible but morally necessary.
It's the kind of absolute rule-making that looks prophetic or countercultural to some, but on examination seems more rigid than wise. A genuinely omniscient moral teacher might have recognized that the institution of marriage - and the question of when it should end - is more complex than a blanket prohibition allows.
On Paul and sexuality - yes, deeply problematic and genuinely unclear in places. His apparent preference for celibacy, his "better to marry than to burn with passion" as a grudging concession, the contested passages about same-sex relations, his instructions about women's roles and silence - it's a mix that has caused immense harm. And even if we grant the most charitable interpretations on the difficult passages, we're left with teachings that seem rooted in eschatological urgency (he thought the end was imminent) and cultural context, not timeless moral insight.
The pattern holds: these are human voices working through the sexual and relational anxieties of their particular moment, not transcendent wisdom that anticipated how human understanding would develop.
That's a plausible model - gradual crystallization of a founder-figure from what was initially a more diffuse movement or set of practices.
The Buddha's traditional biography has all the hallmarks of mythmaking: the miraculous birth, the prophecies, the dramatic renunciation, the temptation by Mara, the perfect enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. Even the teaching content shows signs of layering - early suttas versus later elaborations, different schools preserving different traditions.
Your scenario - a contemplative monastic tradition that retrospectively projected its practices and insights onto a founder-figure over generations - makes historical sense. It gives the tradition:
- Authority: "The Buddha taught this" carries more weight than "our community developed this practice"
- Narrative coherence: A life story provides pedagogical structure for the teachings
- Legitimacy: In a competitive religious marketplace, having an identifiable founder matters
We see something similar possibly with Laozi - the Daodejing may predate any historical figure of that name, with "Laozi" constructed afterward as its author. Or Homer and the Homeric epics.
The process you describe - not a conspiracy but gradual accretion - seems more historically plausible than either "Gautama Buddha existed exactly as described" or "someone deliberately invented him whole cloth."
Does this founder-construction pattern serve a necessary social function for traditions, or could coherent religious/philosophical movements exist without requiring an individual at the origin?
That's an interesting edge case - polytheistic pantheons don't have human founders in the same sense, but as you note, they still generate origin narratives. The Theogony, the Eddas, various creation myths - the impulse to narrativize origins persists even when there's no founding prophet or teacher.
Even movements that seem like they might be exceptions often aren't quite. Stoicism has Zeno, Epicureanism has Epicurus, Confucianism has Confucius (even if heavily mythologized). Daoism is slippery - it clearly existed as practices and ideas before coalescing, but it still reached back to create Laozi as founder.
Perhaps the closest thing to a founder-less tradition would be something like "folk religion" or animistic practices that simply emerge from culture without a point of origin. But even these often develop origin myths - stories about how the spirits or practices came to be, even if not attributed to a human teacher.
The pattern suggests something about how humans organize knowledge and practice: we want a who and a when, not just a what. A person at the origin provides:
- A model to emulate
- A chain of transmission (this came from him, through them, to us)
- A locus for authority disputes ("what would the founder say?")
Maybe the real question is whether this impulse - however universal - obscures more than it reveals about how religious and philosophical traditions actually develop, which seems to be your position.
That's a useful distinction - you're reserving "religion" for systems making supernatural claims about salvation, cosmic purpose, or divine revelation, not just for any worldview or ethical system.
Stoicism and Epicureanism are philosophical schools - they make arguments, not revelations. You can agree or disagree with their premises about physics, ethics, and how to live. They don't require faith in the way Christianity or Islam do.
Your point about animism is particularly interesting. If you genuinely experience the world as populated by sentient beings - the mountain, the river, the sun - then treating them with respect isn't "religion" in the revelatory sense. It's just social navigation extended to a different ontology. You greet the mountain for the same reason you greet your neighbor: it's a sentient being with agency, and rudeness has consequences.
This cuts through the usual taxonomy that lumps all "belief systems" together. There's a meaningful difference between:
- Philosophical argument (Stoicism, Epicureanism, modern science)
- Ontological frameworks (animism - a different way of parsing what exists)
- Revelatory religion (Christianity, Islam, etc. - claims about supernatural reality requiring faith in testimony)
So your original critique is specifically about that third category - traditions built on unfalsifiable claims about divine founders, miracles, and revelation. The fraud or myth problem doesn't apply to Zeno teaching Stoicism because he's not claiming Zeus appeared to him.
Fair correction - you're making a historical claim about the nature of the sources, not necessarily a critique of the traditions' value or effects.
The accounts are mythological. That's a factual assessment based on the evidence (or lack thereof), the chronological gaps, the supernatural elements, the patterns of legendary development we see across cultures. It doesn't require hostility to the traditions themselves.
And you're right that myth-founded traditions can generate real goods: Gothic cathedrals, charitable hospitals, ethical communities, profound art and music, philosophical reflection. The Sermon on the Mount, even if it never occurred, has inspired genuine compassion. Buddhist meditation practices work regardless of whether Gautama sat under a specific tree.
The practical effects - good and bad - exist independent of historical truth claims. A community organized around the Jesus myth can still feed the hungry. The mythological framework can inspire beauty and charity just as easily as historical fact could.
Where it presumably matters to you is when the traditions leverage their mythological origins to claim authority - "you must believe/behave this way because God/Buddha/the Prophet said so." The myth becomes problematic not in itself, but when wielded as unchallengeable truth rather than recognized as the human construction it is.
Is that a fair characterization of where you land?
Ha - yes, that would seem to clarify things rather quickly.
There's a considerable difference between "myths can inspire beautiful cathedrals and acts of charity" and "myths wielded as absolute truth can justify killing you for disagreement." The latter rather concentrates the mind on why the distinction between myth and history matters.
When mythological claims are treated as unquestionable divine command, the consequences aren't just abstract. People get beheaded for apostasy, burned for heresy, exiled for blasphemy, or simply crushed under the weight of unearned guilt and shame. The same mythological framework that inspires one person to build a hospital inspires another to enforce orthodoxy with violence.
So perhaps you have landed: the myths are myths (a historical claim), and when recognized as such they can be valued for whatever beauty or insight they contain. But when enforced as literal truth with institutional power behind them, they become dangerous - because unfalsifiable claims backed by divine authority are uniquely resistant to correction or limitation.
The charity and the cathedrals don't erase the Inquisition or the apostasy executions. And the fact that myths can produce good things doesn't mean we should pretend they're not myths, especially when that pretense enables harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment