Doug Shaver

Because that's what "ahistorical" means.

Actually, it's the earliest unambiguous testimony that the gospels as we know them even existed.

That is the mythicist position, that the earliest references (Paul's) to Jesus Christ were not references to any human being. But it is to be contrasted with docetism, which claimed that Jesus appeared in human form although he was not actually a human being. According to mythicists, early Christians such as Paul were not under the impression that the Christ they worshipped had ever in any form inhabited this world or even seemed to. In the mythicist view, Paul's Christ was crucified, buried, and resurrected in the spirit world, not this world.

I assume you're now referring to the canonical gospels. Mythicists generally do not claim that those stories were myths. They claim those stories were fiction, but not "made up from scratch."

mountainman

Hi avi,

Evidence is certainly the key. Its interpretation is also very relevant. For example, we have "The Shroud" and the "Ossuary" and the "House-Church" and the "Lead Codices", but these things need to be interpreted.

And yet for example, this "Ireneaus" is cited by the worlds experts and National Geographic, as the "Official Source of Historical Information" for the dating and chronology of the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. They mention the C14 date of 280 CE (+/- 60 years) and then immediately and without hesitation cite Ireneus for a "much earlier original document".

~~~~~ IN EUSEBIUS (and his continuators and preservers) WE TRUST ~~~~~

Too true.

Best wishes,


Pete

stephan huller

Doug

I think that many early Christian sects believed that the gospel was really the narrative about the coming down from heaven of the divine name (or letter) to transform a particular historical individual into “Christ” (like Oshea was transformed into Jesus in the LXX). I think that's a typical Jewish or Samaritan “mythological” paradigm - ie mixing history with angelic or divine appearances. I think Irenaeus' heretical gospel of Mark and secret Mark can be read this way. I am not sure Jewish or Samaritan poets were capable of creating “pure myths” with recent historical events. They might be exaggerations but beneath all the symbolism there is still an actual histortical event

spin

My interest is your attempt to insinuate a necessary human basis for what you see as a real human element in one tradition that came out of the mix of messianic traditions already existent in Jewish speculation which was placed over nascent christianity.

Let me go back to your original words:

[T2]But I guess my question would be of the chicken or egg variety. What do Christ Myth do with the testimony of Irenaeus and various other Church Fathers that there were two figures at the heart of Christianity - Christ and Jesus.[/T2]
There is no chicken and egg situation. Both were pre-existent in the messianic tradition inherited by christianity.

By the time of those views mentioned by Irenaeus the twist of traditions which went into earliest christianity had begun to fray in the diaspora, been too hard for some to maintain in "Greek" thought. We see this fraying manifested in various ways. Just think of the Docetists, the "Jewish-Christians" and the adoptionists.

This is not a way to argue for some real human element behind the Jesus of christianity.

stephan huller

spin

I am not arguing that Jesus was a historical figure at all. I have always been interested in the Marcionite tradition and have come to the belief that they were the first organized form of Christianity and so - given that they understood Jesus to be a phantasmic figure (so the reports of the Church Fathers) - I have to assume that this was true. I see the same understanding at work in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and other second century works and figures.

My point is only that the Marcionite gospel clearly retained the specificity of a date for the descent of this angel (I would prefer to identify Jesus as the name of God = Shemah, haShem = the name which transformed Oshea into Jesus). Why would the Marcionites have argued that a mythical event occurred on in a specific year that was a Jubilee according to the calculations of Jews and Samaritans. This is my dilemma.

On the one hand they say Jesus is not human and they reinforce it over and over again in what is known of their exegesis of the gospel. On the other hand, this supernatural being came down in a specific year - the fifteenth year since the shared reign of Tiberius and Augustus (so Clement of Alexandria).

At first this seems to a difficulty. But when you really think about it the Jewish narratives - especially the Pentateuch - have God or his angel, glory etc. actively involved in what the author presumes to be historical events. My solution is to assume that Irenaeus's testimony and that of the Letter to Theodore and other sources argue for:

1. a historical event
2. with a historical Christ who wasn't Jesus
3. a supernatural Jesus who is God
4. who come together in a Jubilee year

I think that's perfectly reasonable and explains a lot of loose strands or things people push under the table about the early witnesses to the gospel tradition.

My point is only that Jesus doesn't need to be human to make the gospel a historical narrative.

There is evidence to suppose that there was someone like Moses, that there was a historical exodus of some sort (certainly not the way it is told in the Pentateuch), there was a historical 'prophet' among the peoples who lived in ancient Jordan named 'Balaam' all of whom interact with supernatural beings but are themselves in some way historical figures.

I suppose that the author of the gospel - Mark - is writing about his experiences with a supernatural divinity which was seen by Simon and the rest of the twelve but was ultimately forsaken by them, an act which ultimately justified the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple and its people.

aa5874

But, Stephan does not accept that the writings of Irenaeus are accurate concerning Marcion.

The fundamental problem I find with Stephan is that he constantanly and consistently inexplicably contradicts himself.

He will VEHEMENTLY argue that Irenaeus is wrong about Marcion and then suddenly claim Irenaeus' writing must be ASSUMED to be true.

Now, it is ALREADY KNOWN that Church writers and Scholars have shown that the veracity of Irenaeus is near to ZERO.

No church writer claimed Jesus suffered when he was about fifty years old and virtually all Scholars have deduced that the chronology, authorship and dating of the Gospels provided by Irenaeus is BOGUS.

If there is ONE writer who cannot be trusted it is Irenaeus.

stephan huller

aa

Irenaeus's testimony is complex. The question of whether Irenaeus accurately explains the traditions he reports on is different than the question of whether Irenaeus reports about actual beliefs and traditions. We see the relative accuracy of Irenaeus's reporting with respect to the Marcosians (who are clearly Clement's Alexandrian tradition of St Mark). The general gist of what Irenaeus says is basically accurate. Yet if Irenaeus were likened to a road map, he could get you to New York but not 5th Ave or Times Square

DCHindley

If I were to hear the Jesus myth was "made up from scratch" I would think of a cook making a pie (or whatever) from ingredients at hand. So sure, there were dying and raised gods and other myths resembling aspects of the Jesus myth lying at hand, but they were myths about Attis, or Osirus, or Dionysus, not about Jesus.

Why would someone use those ingredients to fashion a "Jesus the divine Son of God coming to earth to die by execution on a criminal's cross in order to vicariously take away the sins of the world IF you believe it, but NOT if you don't believe it" myth? Why THAT myth? They might as well have erected a potter's brickbat and worshipped it. A brickbat can be fixed in a standing position, and folks have worshipped things standing in an upright fashion, so it is obvious that they stuck a brickbat in the ground and worshipped it. Anyone who can't see this plain as day is a complete moron! (Just to give it a bit of BC&H flavor).

It still seems to be more reasonable to think of a real person who attracted a dedicated following, who died in an embarrassing manner, and whose followers largely rationalized his death so that it could be considered noble and save themselves from the stigma of having bought into something he had taught or preached - that turned out to be wrong.

DCH

aa5874

Well, why would people of antiquity worship Marcion's PHANTOM as the Son of a God that came to earth without birth and without flesh but was a believed to be an ACTUAL figure of history?

There were many many "BRICK BATS" type myth characters that were worshiped as Gods by the Greeks and Romans.

"First Apology" Marcion and the Marcionites LAUGHED at the Jesus story. Perhaps it was a bit too BRICK BAT for them.

Over 1600 years ago the Jesus story appeared to be unreasonable.

Marcion PROVED that people of antiquity did NOT need an actual human being to believe the Son of a God came down to Capernaum of Galilee in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

You cannot desire a more non-historical figure, a more brick bat figure, as Marcion's Phantom with NO birth and NO flesh yet supposedly appeared real.

But, Marcion's brick bat Phantom DISTURBED the Church for hundreds of years.

How could an ADMITTED PHANTOM disturb the Church for hundreds of years?

The answer is simple.

The Jesus story was BRICK BAT and UNREASONABLE even 1800 years ago.

"First Apology"

EarlDoherty

But not in light of the entire early Christian record outside the Gospels (and Acts), which contains virtually nothing to support that 'reasonable thinking' and lots to exclude it.

Earl Doherty