archibald

Sure. Not necessarily. And I don't think anyone is saying there are grounds for assuming anything.

But at the same time.....the 'hardest' evidence we have is the texts we have. To speculate that there may have been other texts is...well, unfalsifiable speculation.


Sure. It may be, Or it may not be. How can we tell? I would still like to see at least some good evidence that mythicism ever even existed at all. And I would again ask why, if it did exist, it was not trounced like any other heresy. The implication is that it was too hot a potato. I can't see this. I think this is us now thinking this. At the time, there would surely have been a need to counter this while it was circulating?

I agree. And the argument for mythicism is an argument from silence. Which, even with your proviso, is not a very strong form of argument. And in any case, I can't think why, since it wasn't much of an ongoing threat, orthodox Christianity would not have been likely to have included some myther trouncing in their heresy attacks?

aa5874

What nonsense!!!! You don't know what you are talking about.

It is the VERY WRITTEN EVIDENCE for MYTH JESUS that HJers have REJECTED which have SPARKED the renewed QUEST for the "historical Jesus".

HJers REJECT the WRITTEN EVIDENCE found in the EXTANT CODICES that Jesus Christ was the CHILD of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

MYTH JESUS is SECURE and DOCUMENTED in many, many Codices dated by paleography up to the 4th century.

In the Extant Codices, a supposed contemporary called "Paul" ONLY BOASTED that he SAW Jesus in a non-historical state.

MYTH JESUS have a CONTEMPORARY WITNESS in the very CODICES.

It is MYTH JESUS that HJers REFUSE to accept and claim there is ANOTHER Jesus.

What and where is the SOURCE for the OTHER Jesus of Nazareth?

THERE IS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE SILENCE

J-D

In other parts of the same codices.

mountainman

What is the provenance for this same codex before Nicaea?

Vaticanus | Sinaiticus | Alexandrinus | Bibles_of_Constantine

The more likely overall explanation is that the HJ first appeared in the Constantine Bibles and that the Constantinian sponsored heresiologists simply lied about its earlier provenance via a pious forgeries (e.g. "Church History"). The c.326 CE Imperial law that "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians" was enforced by the army.

aa5874

HJ of Nazareth is NOT in the Extant Codices. The Quest for the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth is a REJECTION of the Jesus of Faith, born of a Ghost and a Virgin and the Word that was God.

There is no need to confuse the issue.

There is NO source of antiquity that can show that the Jesus cult advocated the worship of men as Gods or claimed that Jesus was KNOWN as a man with a human father.

In the Entire Canon and Church writings no attempt was made to argue that Jesus was of the seed of man.

J-D

No, it isn't.

Doug Shaver

If I told you, you'd just say they weren't really from the first century.

Doug Shaver

Other ahistoricists can speak for themselves, but I have never presented an argument against Jesus' existence that depended on any text not known to have existed.

At the same time, plausible speculation about what could have happened to any hypothetical text is a reasonable response to any argument claiming that if we don't know about that text, then it must never have existed.

If you've read Doherty, you've seen the evidence. If you don't agree that it is evidence, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

You could, of course, say, "Yes, it's evidence, but it is not sufficient evidence to justify his conclusion." But maybe you'd rather not concede even that much.

I answered that question. You can ask again until doomsday, but I see nothing to be gained by repeating myself.

Not my implication.

Not entirely.

TedM

Hi Doug.

Ok...

Ok, so HJC = nearly zero by say 170AD

Ok, so MJC = ?? from 50-100AD, and nearly zero by 170AD.

I don't get it. Christianity appeared to be continually growing--thus the rise of all the various types and variants in the 2nd century. Do you propose that mythicism morphed into gnosticism from say 100-170AD? How does that happen? Then did some of those gnostics morph into orthodox Christians? How did that happen?

Where do orthodox and non-orthodox Gospels fit into this picture and why would we not have a Mythicist Gospel, which countered all of those foolish orthodox gospels and gnostic gospels? Why do the Jewish records go back to a man and not a 'phantom Messiah'? And, why do the Jewish Christians, the Nazarites, go back to a Jewish-type of Jesus and not a 'phantom Messiah'?

And why does Paul's Jesus, the originator (perhaps) of MJ, not get morphed into a gnostic Jesus (Marcion?) and then morphed again into the Gospel Jesus, or outright rejected altogether by the orthodox?

Why don't we have a single -- just one -- unambiguous reference to purely mythical Jesus origins?

Juststeve

Doug asserts two thing that call for examination.

First, he says that the argument for mythicism is not entirely an argument from silence which is true. The reason it is true is that unlike most cases where an argument from silence is deployed it is not so clear that there is silence in the first place. Even in Paul the plain reading of the text indicates that Paul is talking about a fellow that actually appeared in history. Therefore the argument from silence for mythicism is preceded by a number of preliminary moves such as: 1) Paul didn't really write that, its and interpolation, or 2) Maybe Paul did write that but it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. You need to check with a mythical Jesus theorist to find out what the words mean.

Second, to suggest that Jesus was not an historical figure until the gospels had become widely circulated is nonsense. The Gospels stand as proof that at least some folk regarded Jesus as an historical figure with an earthly career at least by the time the Gospels were written, all within the first century. Unless it is imagined that the Gospels arose completely from the minds of their authors there must have been information about an earthly Jesus even earlier. The most plausible explanation for these traditions is an earthly Jesus.

Steve