Malachi151

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at Bede?

Are you saying that in order for the Jesus Myth hypothysis to be true, there had to have been Christiasn who believed that Jesus was a myth from the start?

That doesn't make any sense.

Are you saying that there had to be Christians who believed that the entire story of Jesus took place "in heaven"? (Sort of what The Jesus Puzzle claims)

I completely disagree.

What would you call the story of Dionysus, Heracles, Achellies, Romulus and Remus, etc., etc., with the rest of the pantheon of mythic heroes and semi-gods?

I fail to see how the story of Jesus differs from any of the other hero stories of the time.

It doesn't matter if people believed that the story of Jesus actually took place in the places mentioned in the gospels or not, many people believed in the other hero and god stories as well, what's the difference, they are all myths...

Roger Pearse

I didn't recall it, I must admit, but am glad to have confirmation.

One always has to bear in mind the extreme difficulties that the ancients had with chronology, given the lack (or lack of use as a standard) of anything like AD and BC.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Bede

I don't see how I have. Could you please explain?

This is similar to what GA Wells is now saying. A man called Jesus said the stuff in Q and this was conflated with another Jesus of whom Paul knew, who was crucified by the Romans. Quite why we need two Jesuses when all the evidence is consistant with one, I've got no idea.

That's the problem with Mythers. They have half a dozen versions and don't feel any need to defend any of them. When one is knocked down, they just move to another. I'm not saying you are doing this, but you have to admit your ideas are a bit 'half baked'.

Anyway, we've moved beyond my OP - the early church could never have deliberately suppressed all knowledge of the JM. No one seems to disagree with this, so I hope that next time a newbie turns up talking about how the church destroyed all the evidence, you'll be the first to correct him.

Best wishes

Bede

Ruhan

Here you go Roger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Jesus_Connection_.3F

http://pluto.matrix49.com/15486/?sub...WhoHeSays.html

Regards,

Ruhan

Malachi151

Bede, you aren't making any sense. No one is claiming that early Christians believed that Jesus was a mythical character, of course they all believed that he was "real", in whatever sense that meant to them, just as people believed that Dionysus was real, Romulus and Remus were real, etc., etc.

Our modern notion of "history" and verification of the existance of person simply didn't exist back then.

People made up history based on assumptions and beliefs all the time back then.

As for the discussion about Celsus and others who claimed that "Jesus was born a bastard", its similar to discussion about the death of Jesus and the proposition that there was an eclipse, people were just taking the Christian claims at face value and trying to come up with logical explanations for them. They had no way to verify if this was a real person or not or if these events really happened or not, and these types of claims were rampant in the time, and treated similarly from other sources as well.

As for the idea that "Jesus was born from a bastard", take a look at The Bacchae:

These are all ideas that were familiar to this time and place. There were, also many people, BTW, who believed that Dionysus was "real" as well.

Does the fact that some people claimed that Dionysus claimed that Semele was really impregnated by by a person and used the claim about being impregnated by Zeus to cover it up mean that Dionysus was a real man-god on earth?

People also believed that Moses was real too, yet there is no evidence at all that he was real. Moses was most likely invented in the 7th century BCE or so. What about Samson? Many people believed and believe that he was real, the same with Noah, Adam, and even "King David".

These are all mythical characters. Samson, as we now know, is a character derived from the Babylonian sun god, his name literally means sun in Hebrew.

Just because people believed someone to be "real" does not make them real. People also believed the Titians to be real, they believed cyclopses to be real, they believed griffins to be real. They argued about the actions and motivations of griffins in ways that would indicate that these griffins were real and had done real things.

People made assumptions based on the claims of others, they had no way to verify, its that simple.

There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was any different than griffins, cyclopses, or Greek heroes, etc.

The reason that there are several current proposals for Jesus Mythicism is because the so-called historical account of Jesus simply doesn't add up.

There is NO WAY to defend a historical Jesus. You cannot defend a historical Jesus, its that simple, so the question becomes, HOW DID this myth develop? That's where we corrently have exploration.

I find it interesting that the gospel of Mark was used by Marcion and Docetists, people who specifically believed that Jesus wasn't a "real person".

We are told that BOTH Jesus and Mary "ascended bodily into heaven" (thereby leaving no trace of their existance on earth).

There isn't even any claimed eyewitness account of Mary's ascention, it was just claimed as theological dogma in the 3rd century.

What about all this though, these claims were common place in the time, and always made in reference to mythical heroes!

For the Greeks, Heracles, Romulus, Aristaeus, were all said to have ascended bodily into heaven.

Philo, the Jewish philosopher/theologean that lived during the supposed time of Jesus, wrote a story about Moses ascending bodily into heaven that almost identically matches a gospel account.

The mythic parallels are simply too many to ignore and are simply much better explanations of the content of the gospels than any proposed historical basis.

We have mythic precidents, which existed in the time and place of the writing of the gospels, meaning that these are stories that we can easily expect early Christians to have been exposed to, which better explain the content of the gospels than any proposed historical source.

That doesn't mean that people didn't believe these stories to be true at the time, surely they did. Surely Philo believed that he was writing a "true account" of how "Moses went to heaven" when he wrote about his bodily ascention. Surely many people believed the Philo account. That doesn't make it true, and that doesn't prevent us from determining today that it was a myth.

Ruhan

Good morning Bede.

Docetism is the belief that Jesus had a spiritual body instead of a physical body and that he as more of an illusion than flesh and blood. This would be the type of sect you are referring to in your previous post, but this has nothing to do with the Jesus Myth hypothesis.

There would never have been a Jesus Myth sect as the very concept implies that Jesus never existed in any form whatsoever.

The earliest Christians had to believe in a historical Jesus but that is not evidence for a historical Jesus. As we have said before, the earliest Christians were poor and uneducated. They could not read or write.

They would have heard about Jesus via the sayings gospels which would have been read aloud in the streets. Decades later a narrative was developed by an unknown author (later called Mark), which was possibly based on the narrative found in Homer's Illiad. Later on we start finding other gospels which were also written by authors who had never laid eyes on the historical Jesus. Most of these gospels used the Markan narrative and the sayings gospels now lost to us.

The real question is, where did the sayings gospels come from? Were they the work of a Jewish author who wanted to give hope to the occupied Jews? Were they based on the sayings of a real man? Were they based on a collection of sayings by different rabbis? Like the Iliad, were they invented and attributed to a semi-historical figure such as Yeshu?

Well through Josephus we have evidence of more than 2 Jesus doing the rounds calling themselves the Messiah.

Mythers have different theories and this issue is open for discussion. It's certainly not an open and shut case and it's certainly difficult to really prove any hypothesis in this regard. It's worth stating that I am still undecided on this topic.

I highly doubt that there would have been any early polemics claiming that Jesus was a myth even if he was not a historical figure. We have no evidence for any substantial polemics being developed at all until the mid 2nd century. By the time that the affluent and educated classes caught wind of Christianity, Christians were already using the synoptics as evidence for the historical Jesus. His historicity would never have been questioned by the 2nd century critics.

As I have said before the only reason we have any record of even 2nd century polemic literature is because Origen quoted Celsus. Non Christians felt no need to preserve Celsus' work.

Regards,

Ruhan

mountainman

Start with the following works of Apollonius of Tyana,
and indeed the biography written by Philostratus, of
him:


The Mystic Rites or Concerning Sacrifices.
[The full title is given by Eudocia, Ionia; ed. Villoison (Venet 1781) p 57]

This treatise is mentioned by Philostratus (iii 41; iv 19),
who tells us that it set down the proper method of sacrifice
to every God, the proper hours of prayer and offering.
It was in wide circulation, and Philostratus had come across
copies of it in many temples and cities,
and in the libraries of philosophers.

Several fragments of it have been preserved, [See Zeller, Phil d Griech, v 127]
the most important of which is to be found in Eusebius,
[Præparat. Evangel., iv 12-13; ed Dindorf (Leipzig 1867), i 176, 177]
and is to this effect:

“ ‘Tis best to make no sacrifice to God at all,
no lighting of a fire,
no calling Him by any name
that men employ for things to sense.

For God is over all, the first;
and only after Him do come the other Gods.
For He doth stand in need of naught
e’en from the Gods,
much less from us small men -
naught that the earth brings forth,
nor any life she nurseth,
or even any thing the stainless air contains.

The only fitting sacrifice to God
is man’s best reason,
and not the word
that comes from out his mouth.

“We men should ask the best of beings
through the best thing in us,
for what is good -
mean by means of mind,
for mind needs no material things
to make its prayer.
So then, to God, the mighty One,
who’s over all,
no sacrifice should ever be lit up.”

Noack [Psyche, I ii.5.] tells us that scholarship
is convinced of the genuineness of this fragment.
This book, as we have seen, was widely circulated
and held in the highest respect, and it said that
its rules were engraved on brazen pillars
at Byzantium. [Noack, ibid.]


Sirr al-Khalêqa (The Secret of Creation)
NB: Extended title - Sirr al-Khalêqa wa San‘at at-Tabê‘at
(The Secret of Creation and the Craft of Nature)

This work was derived by Apollonius (in Arabic Balênús) according
to Jábir ibn Hayyán (722-815) from the Kitáb al-‘Ilal (The Book
of Causes) of Hermes. It ranges from explaining the metaphysical
origin of the universe to considerations on the ontological
categories of the world and the nature of the human soul.

The Arabic version of this book is no doubt based on an original
written in Syriac, Balênús’ native tongue. A Christian monk of
Neapolis in Palestine named Sájiyús states that he translated
the work (into Arabic?)

"so that those who remain after me
may have the benefit of reading it."

- Balênús, Sirr al-Khalêqa wa San‘at at-Tabê‘at (Kitáb al-‘Ilal),
ed. Ursula Weisser (Aleppo, Syria: University of Aleppo, 1979)
p. 100

According to the account recorded in the introduction to the
Sirr al-Khalêqa, Balênús discovered both the Emerald Tablet of
Hermes and the "Book of Causes" while exploring a crypt beneath
a statue of Hermes:

"Thus, I found myself across from an old man
seated upon a golden throne who was holding in his hand
an emerald Tablet on which was written:
“Here is the craft of nature.”
And in front of him was a book on which was written:
“Here is the secret of creation and
the science of the causes of all things.”

With complete trust I took the book [and the Tablet] and
went out from the crypt. Thereafter, with the help of the book,
I was able to learn the secrets of creation, and through the
Tablet, I succeeded in understanding the craft of nature.

- Balênús, Sirr al-Khalêqa, p.7.


There is another story in Philostratus (viii, 19-20), where
Apollonius enters a cave at the temple of Trophonius in Greece
to visit its oracle, declaring that his purpose is "in the
interests of philosophy." After seven days, he returns to his
companions, carrying a book of philosophy supposedly conformable
to the teachings of Pythagoras. Philostratus says that this book,
along with the letters of Apollonius, was later entrusted to the
care of the emperor Hadrian and kept in his palace at Antium.

The full text of the Emerald Tablet can be found
at the end of the Sirr al-Khalêqa.



The Kitáb at-Talásim al-Akbar (The Great Book of Talismans)
Addressed by Balênús to his son, it partly matches up with a Greek
pseudo-epigraph titled The Book of Wisdom of Apollonius of Tyana,
which Dzielska believes was composed no earlier than the late fifth
century, probably in Antioch by Christian Gnostics.
[Dzielska, Apollonius of Tyana, pp. 104-105]

The following extract is from an article by Keven Brown, who has
provided the research on the Islamic Hermetic tradition, in this
article here :

Where did the legends of Apollonius’ talismans come from?
They are not mentioned by Philostratus, so they were either
unknown to him, or he did not wish to speak about them.
Maria Dzielska, whose book Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and
History has been very helpful in constructing this account of
Apollonius, has explained this question.

Eusebius is the first to refer to them in his Contra Hieroclem.
He says that "certain queer implements attributed to Apollonius
were used in his times."
[Cited in Dzielska, Apollonius of Tyana, p. 101]

After Eusebius, references to Apollonius’ talismans begin to
appear frequently. Pseudo-Justin mentions the dissemination of
Apollonius’ talismans in Antioch. It appears that these objects
were so popular that Antioch’s Church leaders decided to accept them.
Pseudo-Justin illustrates the problem in a work containing a
dialogue between a theologian and a Christian:

"The Christian is concerned about the popularity
and spread of Apollonius’ talismans.
He wonders how to explain their magical powers....
He wonders why God...allows them....
The theologian dispels his doubts saying that
there is nothing evil about those objects
because they were produced by Apollonius
who was an expert in the powers governing nature
and in the cosmic sympathies and antipathies...
and that is why they did not contradict
God's wisdom ruling the world."

--- [Ibid., pp. 101-102]

The talismans, which were usually made out of stone or metal,
were placed in cities to protect their inhabitants
against plagues, wild animals, vermin, natural disasters, and the like.
Two other centers in the Greek east where memories of Apollonius
had been strongest, Agaeae and Tyana, were completely converted to
Christianity by this time, so there is no mention of Apollonius’
talismans there. However, surprisingly, in Constantinople itself
Apollonius’ talismans became popular.

The sixth century Antiochian historian Malalas wrote that, during
Domitian’s rule Apollonius paid a visit Byzantium, where he left many
talismans in order to help the Byzantines in their troubles.[Ibid,p.108]
In the thirteenth century, in the hippodrome in Byzantium,
there was still a bronze eagle holding a snake in its claws,
which citizens said had been placed there by Apollonius
to protect them against a scourge of venomous snakes.
This talisman was destroyed by the crusaders in 1204.[Ibid,p.110]



Kitab al-Ahjar ‘alá ra’y Balinas
(The Book of Stones according to the opinion of Balinas)
This treatise by Jabir ibn Hayyan, was divided into four parts
of approximately equal length, called simply al-juz' al-awwal
('the first part'), al-juz' al-thani ('the second part'),
al-juz' al-thalith ('the third part'), and al-juz' al-rabi‘
('the fourth part').

Of this treatise, NLM has a manuscript containing an extract
from the 2nd part (juz') and possibly also from the 3rd juz' .

For other copies, see Sezgin, GAS IV, p. 253 no. 3, and Kraus,
Jabir, p. 80 no. 307-10. There are only three other recorded
copies: Paris, BNF, MS arabe 5099, copied in 1614/1023; Tehran,
Danishgah MS 49; and Cairo, Dar l-Kutub, Tal‘at kimya' MS 218.

Portions of the treatise have been edited and translated into
English by Syed Nomanul Haq, Names, Natures and Things: The
Alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan and his Kitab al-Ahjar (Book of Stones)
[Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 158] (Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994), pp. 119-162 Arabic edition
and English translation pp. 163-202. An earlier partial edition
using only the Paris copy was published in P. Kraus, Jabir ibn
Hayyan (Essai sur l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam).
Vol. 1: Textes choisis (Cairo: Libraries El-Khandji and Paris:
G.P. Maisonneuve,1935), pp. 126-205. The NLM (National Library
of Medicine) copy was not used in either edition.


Dhakhêrat al-Iskandar (The Treasury of Alexander)
In this work Aristotle is made to present the book to Alexander,
which he says was given to him by Balênús, who retrieved it from
a watery tomb, where Hermes had deposited it for safekeeping.
The book discusses, among other things, the principles of alchemy
and the manufacture of elixirs, the composition of poisons and
their antidotes, and the use of talismans for healing.


The Oracles or Concerning Divination
4 books. Philostratus (iii 41) seems to think
that the full title was Divination of the Stars,
and says that it was based on what Apollonius had learned in India;
but the kind of divination Apollonius wrote about
was not the ordinary astrology, but something which Philostratus
considers superior to ordinary human art in such matters.
He had, however, never heard of anyone possessing a copy of this rare work.

A work On Astrology is mentioned by Moeragenes and Damis


The Life of Pythagoras
Porphyry refers to this work, 8 [See Noack, Porphr. Vit. Pythag., p 15]
and Iamblichus quotes a long passage from it.
[Ed. Amstelod., 1707, cc 254-264]


The Will of Apollonius
This was written in the Ionic dialect,
and contained a summary of his doctrines.
[References: Philostratus' sources?]

A Hymn to Memory
Ascribed to him, ref??


Other Works ?(Eudocia)
Eudocia speaks of many other( ?a? a??ap???a) works of Apollonius.


Other Works ?(Jábir ibn Hayyán)
Jábir ibn Hayyán defends a natural picture of Balênús.
In his Kitáb al-Baht, he criticizes vehemently such stories
of magical exploits and attributes them to the inventions of
charlatans and liars.

If Balênús is truly the master of talismans, according to
Jábir, it is not due to magic but to his perfect knowledge
of the properties of things.

For Jábir and other Muslim scientists, Balênús was primarily
a natural philosopher, and they attribute to him several
cosmological, astrological, and alchemical treatises.
[Kraus, Jábir ibn Hayyán, pp. 295]

Jábir ibn Hayyán also wrote ten books according to the opinion
of Balênús (‘alá ra’y Balênús). A collection of sayings from
Balênús in Arabic have come into Latin under the title Dicta
Belini. There is also a work in Arabic by a disciple of
Apollonius named Artefius, called Miftáh al-Hikmat (The Key to Wisdom)
[Kraus, Jábir ibn Hayyán, p. 298, and Encyclopedia of Islam,
new edition, vol. 1, p. 995.]



The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana

Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher Explorer and Social Reformer
of the First Century AD, by G.R.S. Mead (1901), Section 16 of 17,
makes a summary of the letters.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/apollonius_mead_16.htm

GOOGLE INDEX: Letters of Apollonius of Tyana
http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q...s=&safe=images





Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Bede

Hi Ruhan,

Forgive me, as I now see the confusion. Earl Doherty, who must now the the leading proponent of the JM in English, does believe the first Christians thought Jesus never existed on earth but was a heavenly being. I was referring to his theory, which I see, you reject.

Your ideas are quite similar to GA Wells. Do you have any positive evidence that the Q sayings were not by the same Jesus whom the Romans crucified? What are your reasons for rejecting the unanimous witnesses that we have? As you admit yourself, no one ever believed your theory was true. Why on earth should I? I don't think it is enough to say something could have happened as that is open season for any nutter to insert the conspiracy of their choice. We need evidence and so far, you haven't provided any (note, you are mistaken about Celsus when you first mention him).

By the way, MacDonald's rather eccentric theories about Mark and Homer have been debunked in many places. Here's just one.

Best wishes

Bede

Ruhan

That's Docetism which is different from believing that the character found in the synoptics is not based upon a historical character. Earl Doherty believes that the early Christians were mostly Docetists not that they believe that Jesus was a myth.

Because it's not a valid witness. It's hearsay at best.

You shouldn't "believe" any of my theories. It's just a hypothesis and it's a logical possibility and I would not bet my life on it. I wouldn't bet my life on a historical Jesus either.

BTW I was correct in regards to Celsus and provided some sources.

That's a Christian response (from your own site) which is quite defensive and generally not very convincing. You obviously have a vested interest in proving Macdonald wrong.

The theory itself has not been debunked.

Roger Pearse

This is not the text of "Contra Celsum", tho, and doesn't provide one.

This references Contra Celsum 1.28, which also does not say this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse