Onias

A simple question: If modern Christians do not see Jesus Christ as a mythical being, why would ancient Christians think he was?

jakejonesiv

Hi Onias,

Could you define "mythical?"

BTW, I would not want anyone to conclude from these discussions that I think Jesus was a historical person. While Earl and I do not agree on every detail, Earl has provided a great service by marshalling a case for mythicism and we need to acknowledge that debt.

Jake

Bingo the Clown-O

Ack.

Thanks Earl.

Grog

Actually, modern Christians' relation to Jesus Christ is much the same as ancient Christians would have been if we accept the mythicist position. Just as now, Jesus was a heavenly intercessor for humankind. But you make a mistake in thinking that ancient Christians would think of Jesus as a mythical being. That isn't the point of mythicists. Ancient Christians would think Jesus was a real being albeit in heaven, which is exactly what modern Christians think.

TedM

I would ask it this way, though it is much less simple:

Since modern Christians see Jesus' humanity as having been necessary for his resurrection to be meaningful for humans (ie by overcoming the consequences of human sin = human death), why would ancient Christians not have the same expectation?

This is early theology as found in the epistles and gospels.

The answer is not clear although some may subscribe to the idea that somehow Jesus WAS human ENOUGH in his mythical life -- the 'likeness of flesh', that his victory was also our victory.

The idea that all that matters is Jesus is now in heaven misses the main theology of the Christian religion: He had to humble himself to be human so that he could -- with God in Him -- overcome sin and its consequences.

Grog

Yes, this. That seems to be what the epistles say, right? On the other hand, if that not be enough, as I have said many times, the ancients didn't necessarily make a distinction between mythical history and real history. Jesus' sacrifice occurred in the nether-past, only discovered by studying scripture and through direct revelation. I don't see any problem with accepting that the ancients believed the heavenly Jesus took the likeness of man.

No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 1 Cor 2:7

these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. 1 Cor 2:10

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures 1 Cor 15:3-4

Note: these things happened "according to the scriptures." There need be no recent human Jesus in any of this.


I never said that "all that matter is Jesus is now in heaven." I said that the relation to a heavenly Jesus, now and then, would have been the same.

Sheshbazzar

When and where did the JEWS ever kill or pierce this Jebus character?

The story is very clear that it was the Imperial ROMAN government and its soldiers who convicted, crucified, killed, and pierced (Jhn 19:34) Jebus.

It wasn't the JEWS that killed The Christ, it was the ROMANS.

The Imperial ROMAN government, that Scarlet Colored Beast of Revelations 17:3 did the dirty deed. ....figures.

maryhelena

Time will tell, Jake, whether in fact Earl Doherty has marshalled a good case for the ahistoricist position. As of right now, Doherty's 'case' is not well received by NT scholars. My opinion is that Doherty has driven the ahistoricist/mythicist case into a cul-de-sac. There has to be a backtrack from his extreme position if the search for early christian origins is to move forward. Wells made that backtrack. It's not, as Wells once said in regard to Doherty, '.. all mythical'. Earl has to face the gospel story. That story cannot be trumped by an interpretation, speculation, of the Pauline epistles.

I did not grow up in ahistorical/mythicist circles via Doherty. Consequently, I don't hold his theories in any sort of esteem. I don't find his approach to the Jesus 'problem' of interest. Pauline speculation, however much this is made to look scholarly via linguistics - remains Pauline speculation. And, as such, is not the avenue of research that will benefit, move forward, the search for early christian origins. It is a cul-de-sac. It's going nowhere. It's a dead-end.

Yes, of course, Hoffmann is not going to find a historical gospel JC, of whatever variant. But Hoffmann is on the correct pathway for a historical research - it's the gospels, the gospel story, that has to be center stage - not speculation on the Pauline epistles.

Bernard Muller

This is what I have on my webpage criticizing the "Jesus Puzzle":

2.8.2. Heb8:4-5a Darby "If then indeed he were [Greek imperfect tense] upon earth, he would not even be [imperfect] a priest, there being [Greek present tense] those who offer [Greek present tense] the gifts according to the law, (who serve [present]...)"

In Appendix 5, pages 310-312, Doherty calls it a "startling verse" because the imperfect tense in "he were" "is strictly a past tense" (as rendered by "if he had been on earth"). But he admits "the meaning is probably present, or at least temporally ambiguous, much like the conditional sense in which most other translations render it [as quoted]". That does not prevent Doherty to go into his usual speculations, some founded on argument from silence, such as the author should have specified "now" (but did not!). That leads him to say: "making the statement at all seems to preclude the idea that Jesus had ever performed a sacrifice in the earthly realm." (back to where he started!).

I'll counteract that:
A) According to the overall context, Jesus "upon earth" is a supposition. It is relative to Christ functioning as an earthly priest in the present (when the epistle was written). The syntax of Heb8:4 is equivalent of: "if then indeed Bob were in New York city, he would not even be a driver ..." (let's say because of the difficult driving conditions there and Bob being just a passable cabby in his own small city!). But certainly that does not suggest he never visited the Big Apple in the past!
B) There are many examples in the NT with the same grammatical syntax ("if I/you/he/it/we/they were"). Here are some (notice the pattern! That is, in a present reference, the imperfect tense is used for both sides of a hypothetical/conditional argument):

Note: all unspecified tenses of verbs are in the Greek aorist, or second aorist, (past) tense.

a) Lk7:39 Darby "... Pharisee ... saying [present], This [person] if he were [imperfect] a prophet would have known [imperfect] who and what the woman is who touches [present] him, for she is [present] a sinner."
b) Jn 8:42-43 Darby "... If God were [imperfect] your father ye would have loved me [imperfect], ... Why do ye not know [present] my speech? Because ye cannot hear [present] my word."
c) Jn8:39 Darby "They answered and said to him, Abraham is [present] our father. Jesus says [present] to them, If ye were [imperfect] Abraham's children, ye would do [imperfect] the works of Abraham;" (a good example)
d) Jn9:33 Darby "If this [man] were not [imperfect] of God he would be able to do [imperfect] nothing."
e) Jn9:41 Darby "Jesus said to them, If ye were [imperfect] blind ye would not have sin [imperfect]; but now ye say [present], We see [present], your sin remains [present]."
f) Jn15:19 "If ye were [imperfect] of the world, the world would love [imperfect] its own; but because ye are [present] not of the world, but I have chosen you [Jesus' disciples] out of the world, on account of this the world hates [present] you."
This is an excellent example ...
g) 1Co12:19-22 Darby "But if all were [imperfect] one member, where [no verb! typically Pauline] the body? But now the members [are] many, and the body one. ... the members of the body which seem to be [present] weaker are [present] necessary;"

In the syntax "if X were ... (assumption/hypothesis), then ..." (conditional to previous clause), the imperfect tense is used twice in a present context.

And the author of 'Hebrews' did the same (outside of 8:4):
a) Heb7:11 YLT "If indeed, then, perfection were [imperfect] through the Levitical priesthood ... what further need, ... for another priest to arise [Greek present tense] ..." (conditional clause missing)
b) Heb8:7-8a YLT "for if that first [covenant] were [imperfect] faultless, a place would not have been sought [imperfect] for a second. For finding fault, He saith [present] to them ..."
Remark: this is similar to the syntax of Heb8:4, only three verses earlier.

Richard Carrier: "... phrase using the imperfect tense is always a present contrafactual (a past contrafactual would call for the aorist). In other words: "So, then, if he were on earth,
[imperfect, supposition set in the (relative) present (= when the epistle was written)]
' he would not be [imperfect] a priest..." is the only correct translation."

And looking at 'Hebrews', we do have an example of past contrafactual:
Heb4:8 Darby "For if Jesus had brought them [Israelites of the Exodus] into rest,
[aorist, supposition set in the (relative) past (= before the epistle was written)]
' he would not have spoken [imperfect] afterwards about another day."
For Doherty to be correct, the aorist tense should show in Heb8:4a ("If then indeed he were [Greek imperfect tense] upon earth, ...") but does not!

sotto voce

Along with all the Blessed Saints.

And don't forget Holy Mary, Queen of Heaven. To be sure.