Ben C Smith

For Jesus mythicists.

Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true:

1. Paul, writing in the middle of century I, thought of Jesus as a human being who had recently lived, died, and risen from the dead.

2. Q, as laid out in the modern critical edition, existed and preceded Mark.

3. Mark wrote our second canonical gospel based on reminiscences of Petrine preaching.

4. The beloved disciple spoken of in our fourth canonical gospel existed (he was not merely a fiction or a legend), and the gospel was based at least partly on his experiences.

5. Josephus wrote that Ananus had James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, stoned.

6. Tacitus wrote that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7. Mara bar Serapion had Jesus in mind when he wrote of the wise king.

8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died on earth.

9. Papias made inquiries about and wrote down what the disciples of the Lord, including John the elder and Aristion, had passed on.

10. Hegesippus passed on traditions about people who regarded themselves as descendants of relatives of the Lord.

11. Justin Martyr knew recensions of all four of our canonical gospels.

12. Marcion knew the gospel of Luke and used it as the basis for his own docetic gospel.

13. The author of our third canonical gospel was a former companion of the apostle Paul.

14. The author of our first canonical gospel was Matthew the tax collector.

15. Ignatius, writing early in century II, thought of the apostles Peter and Paul as having passed on information about an historical Jesus.

16. Clement, writing late in century I, thought of Jesus as an historical personage who had taught the apostles in the previous generation.

17. Barnabas, writing late in century I or early in century II, thought of Jesus as an historical personage who had chosen apostles in the previous generation.

18. At least one of the genealogies of Jesus (in Matthew and Luke) was composed by someone who thought that some of the contemporaries of Jesus were still living.

19. No ancient Christian writer thought of Jesus as merely a mythic figure; all considered him a personage who had lived and died on earth.

20. No ancient Christian heresiologist makes mention of any heretic or heretical group who thought of Christ purely as a myth, with no historical presence on earth.

21. Paul wrote the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus).

Now, the point of this thread is not to debate the merits of each statement. Rather, the point is to ascertain which of these propositions, if proven true somehow, would most damage the Jesus myth theory. I would like to see each one ranked as follows:

0. This proposition, if proven true, would not damage the Jesus myth theory at all; in fact, it may even be predicted by the theory.

1. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the Jesus myth theory lightly; it is not enough on its own to overthrow the theory, but would serve to support stronger arguments for an historical Jesus. It is something that any mythicist should have to explain.

2. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the Jesus myth theory heavily; it is somewhat difficult to imagine Jesus as a myth if this is true, but the difficulty is not insuperable.

3. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the Jesus myth theory fatally; it is utterly incompatible with mythicism.

I would also be very interested to know which combinations of propositions scored as a 1 or as a 2 would prove to be the most dangerous to Jesus mythicism.

Also, please note that the list is in no way intended as a reflection of my own beliefs or positions. There are at least several on the list that I myself do not agree with.

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

Peter Kirby

For the Wellsian mythicist:

1. 2 if "recently," 0 without that word.
2. 1.
3. 1.
4. 1.
5. 2.
6. 1.
7. 0.
8. 0.
9. 1.
10. 0.
11. 0.
12. 0.
13. 2.
14. 3.
15. 1.
16. 1.
17. 1.
18. 1.
19. 0.
20. 0.
21. 0 if interpolation is likely, 2 if not shown likely.

The combination most deadly to Wells would be the (2)'s about Paul -- 1. and 13. -- as well as the one about James in 5., the one about Peter in 3., and the one about the beloved disciple in 4. Basically, what would be dangerous to Wells would be if those alleged contacts of Jesus in his lifetime actually were contacts of Jesus and presented themselves as such.

For the Doherty mythicist:
1. 3.
2. 0.
3. 1.
4. 1.
5. 2.
6. 1.
7. 0.
8. 3.
9. 1.
10. 0.
11. 0.
12. 0.
13. 2.
14. 3.
15. 1.
16. 1.
17. 1.
18. 1.
19. 3.
20. 1.
21. 0 if interpolation is likely, 2 if not shown likely.

Everything that is dangerous for Wells is dangerous for Doherty, if not moreso. So in addition to the comment for Wells, which still holds good, there is also 1. and 8. and 19. which contradict the Doherty paradigm of Christian origins.

Lastly, the idea that an eyewitness to Jesus wrote a Gospel is fairly well opposite to the Jesus myth ideas, so 14. scored a 3 in both lists. This illustrates the necessity of course of evaluating at some point the truth values of these 21 statements, as most here would relegate 14. to 'false', whether mythicist or no.

When I am presented with a different coherent theory of Christian origins from a different mythicist paradigm, I may be able to redo the numbers relevant to such a different theory. It is impossible, to my mind, to draw many deductions from the fuzzy notion that there was or wasn't a Jesus; some particular theory of Christian origins, with or without a Jesus involved, is what can be evaluated.

I hope these comments are regarded as judicious.

Doug Shaver

A very interesting exercise. Thank you, Ben.

At least 2, probably 3.

1.

3

3

1

0

1 if he wrote during the first century, otherwise 0.

1

0 or 1, depending on specifics about to whom he directed his inquiries.

0

1 at most.

0

2

3. (I'm assuming you don't mean merely "a man who happened to work as a tax collector and whose name happened to be Matthew.")

2

1

1

1

2.9

1

I don't have a clear notion of the cumulative effect of the 1's and 2's. I don't think any particular combination would be equivalent to a single 3. They would instead approach it asymptotically, and the 2's would do so a lot faster than the 1's.

Ben C Smith

Well, I am just pleased as punch with the responses so far. Thanks a ton, Peter and Doug. Hopefully others will join in, too. It would be quite interesting to see Doherty himself give a rundown, then to compare his with what Peter gave under the Doherty-mythicist category. And, Doug, I love that word (and concept) asymptotically; remind me to use it more often in everyday speech.

Ben.

gnosis92

I would be curious as to what our resident Christ mythicists and agnostic spin aaa0000 and Malachi000 and Doherty weigh in.

Ben could I add a couple of others?

5A Flavious Josepheus did write the abridged Testimonium Flavium, which was later interpolated with Christian confessionalism (the abridged being those specific faith statements edited out). This seems much stronger than Mara Serpion as the latter is unknown.

19A No ancient Jewish (i.e Josepheus, and the rabbis who wrote what would become the Talmud) or pagan writer (i.e Pliny, Tacitus, Suentonius) whose writings are still extant thought of Jesus as a purely spiritual figure. All considered him a personage who had lived and died on earth as stated in their writings. They received their informations from Christians who have not read the NT, and they independently verified it with persons hostile to Christians, from pagan Romans and Jews.

20A Celsus had very complete access to early Christian, pagan, and Jewish records, and if he found evidence of a purely spiritual nonhistorical Jesus, would have mentioned it, but then found no evidence Jesus was anything other than a historical figure. (As reflected by attributed Panthera to be Jesus father, and that Jesus learned his magic from the Egyptians in Contra Celsus preserved in Origin)

22 The Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Thomas and the Didache, the Signs Gospel, Secret book of James, Gospel of Phillip, represents historical informations independent of the NT.

23 Author of Revelations saw Jesus as a historical figure who was crucified. He was obviously on an LSD-acid trip when he wrote his weird harangue

24 The early Christians who were burned by Nero in Rome ca 60 had beliefs reflected in our earliest Christian sources Mark and Paul and Q- that of a historical Jesus who was crucified just 2 decades earlier by Pilate.

25 Scholars date gnosticism late second century. There is no evidence of any "mystery religion" in Judaism of Galilee or Jersualum. Purely spiritual messiah is completely alien to Jewish ways of thinking.

26 A great deal of potential information was lost when Jersualuem was destroyed by the Romans70CE. Of all the possible written records, only the Dead Sea Scrolls actually exists from this era and location.

27 The Tailbot family tomb really does belong to the Jesus of the NT, and the James ossuary is authentic and came from the Tailbot family tomb.

28 Iraneus apostolic succession is accurate genealogy.

29 No first century Jew layperson or Jewish thinker in Syria-Palestine thought of a messiah who would suffer and be crucified, and all Jewish thinkers would consider such a death to be under curse from god as stated in the torah.

30 All Jews and All Jewish thinkers and rabbis, of the first century, thought of a messiah who would free Israel from Roman oppression. All Jews and Jewish thinkers would dismiss as a counterfeit messiah any candidate who fails to achieve this goal, or diminishes observance of Torah.

31 Romans pagans by and large would not embrace any religion that is "new", and would not worship a man condemned to death by the Roman empire through crucifixition for leading a failed rebellion, unless they received information to the contrary.

32 The early Christians would be willing to change their story, such as Jesus being condemned to death by cruxifixition, to accommodate Roman sensibilities to further ensure the spread of their religion.

33 Hostile pagan Romans and hostile Jews would have used the idea of Jesus never existing if it were true, in their polemical literature. The Jewish rabbis of the Council of Jamnia would have in their prayer "Cursed are the Nazarenes, for their messiah never existed" 90CE.

34 The Gospel of Mark, Thomas, Signs Gospel, Peter, Didache were written during the First Jewish-Christian war, around 65 CE, and Matthew, Luke, Acts were written before 90CE, and were in circulation and hand copied to the extent that in the second century Marcion and Iraneuos knew of them, and a fragment p52 was found in Egypt of John's gospel.

Obviously I am a historicist. A large number of Jewish and pagan figures whose historicity is never challenged, would not exist according to the Christ-mythicist standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. Did Spartacus exist? Did 300 Spartans really fended off 1 million Persions at Thermophyle? Did the stoic philosopher Rufus exist? Did Alexander the Great or Socrates exist? Is Plato's Socrates and Xenophon's Socrates the same person? Did any of the Pre-Socratic philosophers like Zeno actually exist? WHy is Plato silent on his favorite student Aristotle?

Doug Shaver

Other mythicists can speak for themselves, but that is not the standard I'm using.

There is evidence for Jesus' historicity and there is evidence against it. The evidence against it is sufficiently stronger than the evidence for it, in my judgment, to create reasonable doubt about his existence.

I suspect there are many ancient figures whose existence ought to be questioned but never is.

Clivedurdle

Ben, please expand. Are you saying Hebrews does not say that?

Ben C Smith

No, but Earl Doherty says that Hebrews does not say that.

Ben.

GakuseiDon

Ben, one I would like to add (though perhaps specific only to Doherty mythicism):

22. There is nothing in the literature of the time to support the idea of a "fleshly sublunar realm" or "spiritual realm" in which the earthly myths of the gods were thought to have taken place.

But I doubt that any of your statements to be tested would impact Doherty's version. As someone on this board once said, it doesn't matter how wrong Doherty is about everything else, his theory bests explains what we see in Paul. (I imagine that would be true regardless of the outcome of your current discussion about Q with Doherty) That's simply a truism that cannot be gotten around. The author of Hebrews thought that Jesus died on earth? Well, given the lack of historical details he obviously represents an intermediary step between Pauline mythicism and Gospel historicism. Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's teachings? Well, he obviously used them as part of his allegory. After all, Paul mentions a Peter but doesn't say that he spoke to Jesus personally.

It probably would be better to break down the controversial statements within Paul's writings and assign values to those. From what I've seen, anything outside Paul doesn't get alot of interest from mythicists generally.

Zeichman

I'd be interested in seeing someone make a counterpart for historicism. Great idea for a thread, Ben.