Bede

Many radical theories about Christian origins excuse the lack of primary evidence for their reconstruction of events by postulating a successful exercise in suppression of the relevant documents by the early Church. The usual suspect is Constantine, but most Jesus Mythers have realised that to be credible, the suppression must have taken place earlier. The reason for this is the lack of any rebuttals against the Jesus Myth heresy by Christian apologists of the second and third centuries, despite their detailed refutation of literally dozens of other heresies. Also, the many Christian documents to have been found in Egyptian archaeological digs gives us a considerable amount of material uneffected by any edicts of Constantine and his successors.

I think the lack of rebuttals by the heresiologists is, itself, fatal to the Jesus myth hypothesis. After all, this was a heresy that, according to mythers, was true and so surely was more worth refutation than the weird fantasies of the gnostics. But let me also add a few notes on how successful, or otherwise, the Church has been in suppressing documents it doesn't like.

The papacy following the Gregorian reform has become the very byword for successful control of ideas. The inquisitors were accorded extreme powers to hunt down and destroy subversive literature. There was nowhere to flee, nowhere outside the control of the papacy where Latin literature could realisitically be studied. Almost all literate people were clergy under direct ecclesiatical control. Furthermore, copying manuscripts required skills that hardly existed outside monestaries and universities, not to mention a great deal of money. Surely, in this case, a text specifically condemned and ordered to be burnt by the pope had no chance of survival.

Of course, you already know what I'm going to say. Oddly, condemned documents seem to have a better than usual chance of surviving. Here are two examples: Peter Abelard's Ethica and Theologica were condemned by Innocent II in 1140, worthy only to be burnt. We have an eyewitness account of the bonfire in Rome. Of course, both survive in multiple manuscript copies. Admittedly, there are few from the 12th century, but these multiply in the 13th and 14th. All the power of the medieval church could not prevent its own staff from copying these forbidden works.

The second case is Cecco D'Ascoli, burnt at the stake in 1327. At the same time two of his books, De sphera and Acerba, were thrown to the flames and utterly condemned by the Florentine inquisitor. Of course, they both survive. The rarest of his works is the one that wasn't condemned!

It seems clear that if the medieval church could not stamp out a text of which it disapproved, it is absurd to suggest that the early church was in a position to do so. It is almost as absurd to believe Constantine, in a world with a far higher literary level than the 12th century, could have managed it either. And, in both cases, they leave us no trace at all, even in rebuttals, of the works they allegedly covered up.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Malachi151

First of all, it is not necessary that people in the past called Jesus a myth in order to show that he was, nevertheless, a myth.

There are no documents from the 1700s or 1800s calling Molley Pitcher a myth either, but historicans now agree that Molly Pitcher is indeed a myhtical construct.

There are no documents calling Samson of the Jewish scriptures a myth, but virtually all scholars agree that Samson is a mythic consrtuct based on the Babylonian sun god, his name does, afterall, mean "the sun" or "of the sun".

Etc., etc.

However, having said that, there are actually admonitions against what we would call a "mythical" positions:

There were plenty of groups, in fact the majority of Christians for the first 200 years, who believed that Jesus was not a flesh and blood person.

Ruhan

Early polemics might not have survived because no one had the interest nor the capital to produce copies of it.

Take Celsus for example, the only evidence we have of his polemic work comes from Origen. Celsus obviously had a certain amount of influence and wrote a considerable amount on the Christian faith based on Origen's rebuttal, however nobody seemed interested enough in it to make further copies of it. It's worth noting that even Celsus made the claim that Jesus was based on an earlier Jewish legend from around 100 BCE.

As the 1st and early 2nd century church were relatively small, poor and not very influential, it is not suprising that you would not find many polemic writings from this early period.

Bede

I'd agree with this accessment. The trouble is that we do have considerable amounts of polemic from around 200AD so we need to assume that the myth position had completely disappeared by then. I find that hardly credible that the 'truth' disappeared while dozens of other obscure heresies were documented.

For example, the passages that Malachi has ripped out of context refer to a heresy called docetism. We have lots of stuff about this (and it doesn't support the JM position at all). Why, then, is there nothing on the heresy that Jesus was a purely heavenly being?

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

jjramsey

This is an irrelevant comparison, since Molly Pitcher was not the subject of a religion where people argued with each other vigorously on what was correct doctrine. In the case of Christianity, we have several arguments against heresy preserved, yet no one was vocal about what had to have been a doozy of a heresy--the idea that Jesus was never on Earth.

Ruhan

You make a valid point but you have to remember that by the time that Christianity became popular amongst the middle and upper classes (mid 2nd century BCE), Jesus was already established as a historic character.

Christianity was too small and inconsequential in the 1st century to have any educated critics. You also have to ask yourself if you could have lived in Jerusalem in 30 CE and not have heard about Jesus. He was one of thousands of men who were crucified and not the only Jewish man claiming to be the Messiah. In fact Josephus refers to a few men named Jesus who laid claim to Messiahship during this period.

Thus by the mid to late 2nd century BCE, the question about Jesus' historicity was redundant as it was impossible to verify it.

Bede

Hi Ruhan,

The trouble is that what you are suggesting is implausible. The scenario runs like this:

* A sect of Myther Christians arises in the mid first century.
* Paul spreads this faith to Greece, around Asia Minor and even to Rome.
* For mysterious reasons some of this sect decide to become historicists and inexplicable make Jesus from a divine being into a Jewish criminal.
* The mythers totally disappear without leaving a trace in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome well before the mid second century.
* The mythers disappearence takes place without any trace of polemic against them in early writings.
* The historicists decide to adopt the writings of the Myther Paul wholesale. Why?!? Surely they don't need them as they must, at first, have known that he disagreed with them.
* No one is the wiser for two thousand years.

Is this credible? Of course it isn't. When you see what the JM myth involves, it falls apart.

Best wishes

Bede

Ruhan

Hi Bede,

It seems to me as if you are confusing Docetism with the Jesus Myth hypothesis.

The 1st century church could have believed in a historical Jesus and yet the Jesus Myth hypothesis could still be true. As the religion spread by word of mouth, it would have focussed on the sayings of a man called Jesus. One collection of sayings becomes embellished with a narrative and turns into a historical account. This would not have been the first time this has happened. It's worth noting here that none of the people who had met the historical Jesus ever played a major role in the development of this religion. None of them wrote anything about him and as you know, Paul was merely a later convert. So the only people laying claim to a historical Jesus heard about him from someone else.

Then of course as Celsus claims, there was story about a man called Yeshu around 100 BCE, who was stoned and hanged in Jerusalem on the passover for his heretical teachings. Does this qualify as a historical Jesus, even though its' so vague? Surely not, but it could be a clue to the origin of the legend.

Regards,

Ruhan

Roger Pearse

Is there a reference for this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

There is nothing like this in Celsus.

There are (late) traditions in the Babylonian Talmud which speak of a Yeshu the Nazarene living in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. These traditions appear to be legendary developments of earlier traditions found in the Palestinian Talmud which have no mention of a Yeshu.

Some have argued (IMHO probably wrongly) that Epiphanius of Salamis in chapter 29 of the Panarion (Against the Nazarenes) shows knowledge of such traditions.

Andrew Criddle