mountainman

This thread relates to often repeated claims by Jesus historicists, typified by those of Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman (below) that mythicism is a 18th or a 19th century phenomenom. However one undeniable historical fact appears to be passed over in silence by such historicists' critical claims against mythicists. Namely that national and state Blasphemy Laws violently suppressed the freedom of speech (and thus of course the written word) from at least the epoch of the Christian Inquisitions of the 12th century until the 19th century.


The rise of mythicism after the relaxation of blasphemy laws.

During this epoch of 800 years Christian views were essentially taken for granted because they were protected by Blasphemy laws that supported fascist retaliatory action against any and all dissenting views. It is entirely logical therefore that we are extremely unlikely to find any written sources which assume Jesus did not exist during this 800 year epoch.

From the archives (which now appear to be recovered ) on the idea that Jesus did not exist being a modern notion. (Ehrman).



It is argued here that while the mythicist idea that Jesus did not exist appears to have been made up in the 18th century, this may not in fact be the case, because the idea may have been violently suppressed during the epoch from the 12th to the 18th century by these Draconian "blasphemy laws".


Mythicism may be far older than the 18th century

I think this claim by historicists such as Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman may be errorneous.

I wish to discuss the very real political possibility that the history of the suppression of mythicism and the history of the suppression of blasphemy are directly related to one another, and that mythicism is not an 18th century novelty but is actually far older.

That mythicism appears to have surfaced as a result of the relaxation of blasphemy laws (in the 18th and 19th century) does not imply that mythicism did not exist before the 18th century, rather it may have existed but was violently suppressed.

Could this claim by historicists such as Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman be erroneous?

What opinions do others have on this matter?






DISCLAIMER: This thread concerns the history of blasphemy and mythicism only as far back as the 12th century (and no earlier).







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

MrMacSon

my superficial understanding is that the primary doctrine (& hence beliefs) were about a divine godly Jesus, so the notion of a historical man-only Jesus was hardly to the fore, until the 18th/19th centuries (the first quest?)

aa5874

Heated arguments concerning the nature of Jesus were in full swing since the mid-late 2nd century. In fact, writers for the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was not a man and claimed those who claimed Jesus was a man were liars or heretics.


Examine Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" It is clear that since the 2nd century there were Jesus cult writers who argued that Jesus did NOT have a human father.

Examine Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" 1 Examine "Against Heresies" 1 where so-called Christian argued against one another whether or not Jesus had a human father, human flesh or was wholly divine.

Anyone who claims a non-human Jesus is a recent argument does not understand the writings of antiquity or is merely spreading propaganda.

It was the very Jesus cult that argued Jesus had no human father but had human flesh.

It was the Jesus cult itself that promoted Jesus as a Mythological character since the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr admitted that the story of Jesus was like the mythology of the Greeks.

First Apology Origen in "De Pricipiis also admitted that his Jesus did NOT have a human father and was born of a Holy Spirit.

Origen's De Principiis It is very disturbing to me when persons like Ehrman present blatant erroneous information about the writings of antiquity when there are known writings that actually identify the arguments from Christian themselves that Jesus had no human father and was born of a Ghost since at least the 2nd century.

mountainman

Thanks for the reply Mac.

There is no doubt that historicism (i.e. its quests) has followed upon the loss and manifest failure after the Age of Enlightenment of the notion of the Jesus of Faith. Having said this however I am interested here not in the appearance of historicism (and its quests), rather the appearance of mythicism.

Specifically I am arguing against the claims made by (at least two) historicists that mythicism chronologically appeared only in the 18th or 19th century (depending which historicist you read).

The essence of mythicism as I see it is essentially the exploration and development of the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist in history as a historical personality/human being and neither as a "divine being".

It may well be that blasphemy laws were used to suppress people denying the existence of divine godly Jesus - there are examples below, such as Edinburgh student Thomas Aitkenhead hanged after denying god and claiming theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill invented nonsense".


Blasphemy Laws violently suppressed the freedom of speech (and thus of course the written word) from the 12th century until the 19th century.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Hi aa5874,

The OP has a disclaimer narrowing the discussion to the epoch from the 12th century to the present day. While I appreciate (and essentially agree with many of) your arguments related to these centuries of so-called "Early Christianity" they are not relevant to the OP.

You might like to address the question as to why such heated arguments concerning the nature of Jesus do not appear in the historical record for the epoch from the 12th century to the 18th or 19th century.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

A few notes on the appearance of "blasphemy laws" in England and the US:

(1) In England ....

THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW OF BLASPHEMY by Courtney Kenny.
The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1922), pp. 127-142



(2) In the US

Blasphemy and the Law: A Comparative Study (2006) by Brenton Priestley






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Clivedurdle

If from the various creeds Jesus is fully god and fully man wasn't it therefore blasphemy to separate things in either direction - only a god or only a man?

The snag is that chimera were accepted as part of the natural order - St Christopher and his dog head for example.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic...al-middle-ages

mountainman

Some further notes on reading various articles on JSTOR related to blasphemy.


Analyzing the History of Religious Crime. Models of "Passive" and "Active" Blasphemy since the Medieval Period
Author(s): David Nash Source: Journal of Social History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Fall, 2007), pp. 5-29 Published by: Oxford University Press



Would anyone like to comment upon that?



Again it is fitting to ask the question that, when Bart Ehrman (and other historicists) claim that "Every single source that mentions Jesus up until the 18th century assumes that he actually existed." whether they are in any sense aware of the church and state and national laws which were directly proscribed to violently persecute anyone who might have explored the notion in writing that God or Jesus did not exist.

ERRONEOUS CLAIM?: There are no Myth-Fish in the Pond before the 18th century !!!!!!!

It's a bit like Group A (Historicists) looking for myth-fish in a small pond every afternoon at 5pm not knowing that at 3pm every afternoon the pond is emptied of myth-fish by another Group B. Group C are sitting around the pond watching the afternoon fishing. Group A make the claim that there are no myth-fish in the pond. Well they are kind of right aren't they. Group A cant see any myth-fish. Group B saw the myth-fish. Group C also saw the myth-fish being taken away with Group B but they also see Group A claiming that there are no myth-fish.

Can anyone find a better analogy?

In prison for blasphemy by Ramsey, W. J., 16 pages.

This makes an entertaining read. The author relates that he was visited by the prison Chaplain Rev. G. Playford on the 2nd day of his prison sentence. The author quotes the Chaplain ....

This happened at the closure of the 19th century. In the archives interested parties may read the Full report of the trial of G.W. Foote and W.J. Ramsey, for blasphemy. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, April, 1883 The trial held April 24, 1883, in the High court of justice, Queen's bench division, for the "publication in the 'Freethinker' of a series of 'blasphemous libels.'

This episode is from 1883. The further we go back into the past, the worse this gets. I do not intend here to examine the politics of conquering blasphemy before the 12th century because I do not need to in order to make my point.

My point is that those people who make the claim that mythicism is an 18th or 19th century invention pass over in silence the preceding centuries of censorship of "Freethinker Ideas" according to the "Law of the Land". In these earlier centuries, including those of the inquisitions, the state bolstered the church and the church bolstered the state and anyone speaking out or even questioning the Bible (let alone whether Jesus was not a god, or whether in fact even Jesus existed as a man, or indeed whether Jesus was a character in a fiction story or monstrous tale) could have been summarily executed, or tortured, or jailed, or had their lands and books confiscated.

Therefore the claim that "Every single source that mentions Jesus up until the 18th century assumes that he actually existed" is essentially immaterial to the existence of mythicism prior to the 18th or 19th century.

Those who make this claim have not been diligent historians because they are passing over in silence the negative evidence against their own claim.

The (political) history of mythicism has been suppressed. The history of mythicism is very much related to the history of the "Blasphemy Laws" over the period from (at least) the 12th to the 18th/19th century.

It's about time someone mentioned this to the anti-mythicists.

And just for the record when I refer to mythicism I refer to any hypothetical theory or scenario in which the Bible Jesus was not an historical figure thereby implying that the bible new testament was historically fabricated (in the 2nd or 3rd century for example) for any number of reasons from "we made a few unintentional mistakes" to "we intentionally forged a few central things".






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Jesus was the very valuable intellectual property of the church and state which protected the integrity of its intellectual property by the sword and by the law of the land. Whether Jesus was fully god or whether Jesus was a man or whether Jesus was both fully god and a man or whether Jesus was some other combination, permutation, converse or inverse of any of these things, Jesus was protected by the law and its swords and guns and law books.

From at least the 12th century Jesus needed protection from the attack of the heretical and blasphemous mythicists.

So the Inquisitions were conducted. After these came the Blasphemy Laws.

And Lo and Behold Jesus was protected until the 18th or 19th century

After that in the 20th century, Lo and Behold Jesus was pissed upon ....



See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

I think you are missing a significant point.

Claiming that Jesus was a mere man, a mere historical figure, was blasphemy and heresy, and would get you burnt at the stake at certain periods of history, but we know that there were people who claimed this.

Claiming that Jesus was a spirit and had not come in the flesh was another sort of blasphemy.

Claiming that Jesus was of a different essence from god was another heresy. But we know that people made this claim.

For your fish pool analogy to work, you have to assume not only that claiming that Jesus was a myth was blasphemy, but that it was so blasphemous that the heresy hunters and the Inquisition and all the other defenders of the faith could not even mention it. This is where your argument starts to look shaky.