ApostateAbe

Theology is subjective, but even subjective phenomena follow patterns, just like myths generally, because theology is a subset of mythology. Theology tends to be whatever persuades people to believe and to evangelize for a religion, and that is the best way to make sense of any theology. For example, there is no theology where God is a powerless bumbling idiot and worthy of adherence. Nor is there a theology where God is both evil and worthy of adherence. Theology isn't something "out there" beyond our comprehension that we can't possibly make sense of, even if it is often complex, mysterious, ambiguous, illogical or whatever. Our explanations for theology tend to work very well with that explanatory framework.

spamandham

I agree, but I don't think positing a historical Jesus has the least and smallest suppositions.

It provides no answer at all to simple questions like, how come no-one knows where Jesus was buried. It's not just that it's been lost to the ravages of time, even the earliest Christian authors are oblivious of it. None of the early texts discuss the location of his tomb, pilgrimages to his tomb, etc.

The idea of a resurrection is not even compatible with a physical tomb, which means that even at the time of Paul - a supposed contemporary of Jesus who lived before the destruction of the temple - the location of his tomb had already been forgotten. In contrast, mythicism is completely compatible with the lack of early mentions of the location of the tomb, as well as being compatible with the resurrection in the earliest texts. Jesus never existed at all, which explains why no-one knew where the tomb was and why a resurrection story can form the basis of the earliest texts.

If there was a historical crucifixion, then it would have been necessary to find some meaning in it if the cult were to survive. The thing that makes this ad hoc is not that it's impossible, but that it it's an unlikely scenario. Cults centered around a human founder only rarely outlive that founder. It's not that it never happens, it's just unusual. You must posit that Christianity is one of those rare cases simply because it exists. There isn't any direct evidence that this is what happened, which makes the argument ad hoc.

But the ubiquitous sacrifice mentality of the day is enough to explain the need for a sacrifice. A "perfect sacrifice" is a convenient way of divorcing oneself from the Jewish legal system while maintaining a claim to being "chosen", and we see this conflict spelled out in Paul's writings, so we know it was part of the dynamic.

I agree that it's past tense, and that the suffering servant is Israel. I don't think it would be easy to claim these were fulfilled prophecies of a human Jesus if it was understood in that way in those days. So it either wasn't understood that way, or Jesus was not originally viewed as a human being.

Some aspects of the Jesus story involve things that are derived directly from Isaiah 53 and yet are unlikely to have been historical:

- "he was pierced for our transgressions", so a Roman soldier pierces his side

- "he was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth", so he does not defend himself on trial

- "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death", so he is buried in a rich man's tomb

Why do the gospel authors include nonhistorical details, if as you argue, the application of Isaiah 53 is quote mining? How could nonhistorical details aid such a claim? Wouldn't they detract from it instead?

Psalm 22 plays a role in that idea, yes, but no single scripture is "the source". "The source", is probably the fall of the temple. This is the event that required a quest for new meaning. Jesus is a myth, but not a myth in the sense of Remus and Romulus, he's a myth that was born from anthropomorphizing the nation of Israel and the fall of the temple.

So we have this crucifixion story that is totally bogus in every regard, except for the crucifixion by Pilate itself, as historicists like to claim. Is it really not obvious that it's a constructed story?

There were hundreds if not thousands of cults in ancient Rome that had no known founding figure and unknown origins. Spinning new tales and creating a new cult was a great way to make a living. What type of example are you looking for in particular?

maryhelena

Personally, I balk at the idea of even imagining the gospel storyline re Jesus, even a non-crucified Jesus, being equated with Philip. To me, the Jesus figure is entirely figurative, symbolic or mythological. It's not a case of mythology being superimposed upon Philip. (although I can see that someone could think differently....) But that, to my mind, would be missing the point of the gospel Jesus storyline. The point is not an embellishing, a glorifying of our human frailty but of a celebration of our spirituality, our intellectual capacity; the real element of our nature that makes us the human animals that we are. To equate the gospel Jesus, even a non-crucified Jesus, to a historical figure is to undermine, to minimize, the intellectual 'power' of the spiritual Jesus construct.

As a historical figure Philip is purely of interest because he lived at a specific time period. A time period of interest to OT prophetic interpretations. A time period when, as the gospel storyline indicates, ideas regarding a messiah figure were current. Philip does not fit the expected mold. But, like Cyrus, could be viewed as being a non-Jewish anointed figure. A figure that could, if viewed through a spiritual prism, set free those bound to the Mosaic Law - as Cyrus delivered the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Obviously, Philip did none of this in real life. But years later, after 70 ce, all it needed is for a Jewish re-examination of those OT prophecies. A re-interpretation, inspired by the reality of Philip' life - a re-interpretation that would lead to the idea of a spiritual instead of a physical messiah figure. Thus, the creation of the Jesus storyboard. A mythological Jesus storyboard that has been backdated to the historical time period in which Philip lived.

Regarding Luke' 29/30 ce. Yes, the 40 years to 70 ce are suspicious ie symbolic numbers etc. However, it's also worth while to see this date as being the end of a symbolic time frame as well as starting one. Luke has already indicated a 70 year time period back to 40 BC - with his mention of Lysanias of Abilene. And of course, once a 70 year period is on the cards - Daniel 9 comes into the picture. In this case the 490 years back from 29/30ce to the 7th year of Artaxerxes I, around 459 bc, when Ezra leaves Babylon for Jerusalem. (Artaxerxes dated to 465 bc - Wikipedia). From 29/30 ce until the end of Pilate' rule in 36/37 ce - is 7 years. Philip's death in 33 ce being in the middle of that 7 year period. Yes, it's all playing with numbers - but that is par for the course re Jewish prophetic interpretations.

ApostateAbe

I think that is a great point, and I do think that it is a problem for any scholar who posits that Jesus was buried in a tomb. We would very much expect that the tomb of Jesus, resurrection or no resurrection, would be venerated as the most holy place in the world by the continuous generations of Christians from the very beginning. I don't know the critical scholarship's opinion on the tomb, but you may remember my "Gospel of Abe" where I laid out my model of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity. I claimed that there was no tomb and no Joseph of Arimethea. Instead, Jesus was picked apart and eaten by scavenging birds and dogs, while Roman guards stood by. The guards left after Jesus was completely eaten and carried off, and rural women found no body after three days, so they jumped to the conclusion that he had resurrected. Peter didn't believe it, but he still capitalized on it. I made this claim because a Roman poet of the third century, Pseudo Manetho, wrote about crucifixion victims as being food for birds of prey and dogs, and Christians had an interest in getting Jesus into a tomb so to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53. I didn't have in mind the point that Christians should have kept track of the tomb, but I take it as further support for my hypothesis.



Well, I suppose that you can think of it this way: early Christianity is unusual one way or the other. You don't have to accept that there really was a founder of Christianity who was crucified and they spun his death into a good thing, but it is still a doctrine that you see in the early Christianity--somehow, they believed in a founder who was crucified for their sins. An unusual thing like that requires an unusual explanation. You have your unusual explanation, and I have mine. I think my explanation has the advantage of explanatory power--we expect that whatever happened to Jesus is roughly what Christians decided to believe. Your explanation does not seem to have the same level of explanatory power, even if it was a culture steeped in sacrifice. How are sacrifices normally done? Not with crucifixion. They are done by burning an animal on an alter. Therefore, we may expect that Jesus should have burned, not crucified.
If the gospels were nothing but plausible untainted history, then nobody would think that mythicism is an option, so, yes, I think such things do detract from the theory, but not too much. It is very much expected that Christians would be motivated to change the accounts in favor of fitting them to perceived messianic prophecies.
OK, so why do you think crucifixion was chosen as the method of death instead of stoning or something else? Do you think it was Psalm 22?
I would NOT say that it is bogus in every regard except for the crucifixion by Pilate. That would be hyperbole. There are a few things that we are sure about, such as the crucifixion, the betrayal by Judas, Jerusalem, the Passover, and Pilate, there are a bunch of things that we can comfortably conclude are false, and there are a bunch of other things that we are just not sure about, such as the two thieves, Simon of Cyrene, the spear, the sponge, the sign and the crown of thorns. Because the story is filled with invention, it is certainly not too implausible that the entire story is invention. When the hypothesis becomes the best fit to the evidence, then I figure it goes from plausible to most probable.
I think a cult or a religion with a myth of a martyred human founder in a recent historical setting would be appropriate. The comparison doesn't need to have all of those characteristics. The point is that you need a close comparison of some sort to Christianity if you want to claim greater plausibility than competing explanations.

aa5874

Where did you get that story from?

The multiple versions of the Jesus stories from antiquity cannot be altered. They are virtually CAST in stone.

You cannot alter or DARE to alter Homer's Iliad.

You cannot change the birth of Homer's Achilles.

The birth of Homer's Achilles is CAST in STONE.

Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess. You can't change his mother now. Whether or not you believe Homer, you can't change a single word.

You can't change a single word in any version of antiquity of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke or gJohn. The stories of antiquity about Jesus are CAST in stone.

And in them Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

You don't like the mythology.

Too bad.

You can't write another story now. It is too late.

mountainman

The advantage goes to the theory in field of ancient history --- not IMO theology (imo) --- which has the ability to simply explain all the available evidence (or lack of evidence) leaving minimal unexplained controversies (eg: Arian, Julian, Nestorian, Origenist, Gnostics, Heretics, Holy Trinity, etc)

bacht

Or, heresy fighters in the 2nd C found a useful tool in an historical Jesus, and perceived also its value in attracting a wide following.

It's a lot simpler to imagine people inventing stories a century or more after the alleged events. An HJ was created because people LIKE to have historical founders for their sects/institutions. In the absence of hard physical evidence isn't this the Best Explanation of the textual record?

ApostateAbe

It's a lot simpler, you say? Occam's razor works as a functional method only when all of the evidence and potential problems are considered. Your model would require that all of the letters of Paul, many of which are strongly considered to be authentic, are actually very clever forgeries. It isn't impossible, but, if the point is to trim the ad hoc explanations for the simplest model, then it is a problem. You also have the problem of the elements in the gospels that would seem awkward in the gospels if the first people to read them were in the 2nd century, such as the apocalyptic deadlines of Jesus given in Mark 9:1 and Mark 13:30 (and corresponding quotes in Matthew and Luke), deadlines that clearly failed by the 2nd century, as you may discern from reading John 21:22-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8. Again, it is not impossible to find alternative explanations, but the "simplest" explanation is only probable when it is chosen in light of all of the evidence and problems. As you know, the "simplest" model of all is that all of the New Testament is completely true.

dog-on

Abe, all of Paul does not need to be forgeries, just do not read them with your assumption, nor must you forget the preterist view regarding the gospels.

All in all, the razor cuts against you.

mountainman

That model is reserved for the plain and simple unquestioning followers of authority. The simplest model is actually the opposite - that the new testament is completely false --- a fabricated "holy writ" specifically designed for a largely illiterate and uneducated society already held in thrall by the oppressive and fascist power of the publisher's army.