andrewcriddle

I've started this poll because I feel that posters discussing mythicism often mean different ideas about Christian origins; ideas with different strengths and weaknesses.

This poll is an attempt (probably unsuccessful) to clarify things.

First of all I think Jesus mythicism is a sub-category of Jesus ahistoricism. All mythicists are ahistoricists but the reverse is not true. Jesus mythicism involves a controversial claim about what early Christians claimed. This thread is primarily about what early Christians claimed rather than about what facts lay behind those claims. (I'm calling early followers of Christ Christians even if the name Christian is a bit later.)

Secondly there are I believe a number of different types of mythicism with different arguments for and against and arguments about a very general idea of Jesus mythicism may fail to confront the real problems.

I hope the options are reasonably clear. For the purposes of this poll recent means after the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures eg if early Christians claimed that Christ died 50-100 BCE this would be a claim that Christ had died recently.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

This is an excellent poll/question.

Rather, than one answer, there are probably several different early Christian groups suggesting several different answers. We might even say "all of the above.

I think that text can be found to support all of these views and depending on when each text is dated very different pictures of early Christianity emerge.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

You almost got a "other vote"

I think a man was put to death on a cross during passover for trying to fight the Roman corruption in the temple.


It is my opinion there is some historical core to the threats of Joshua claiming he would take down the temple, as a later riot factually did.

JoeWallack

JW:
My guess is Jesus was hung They Said You Wuz Hung and Paul sold it as "crucified". This explains many things, especially why we have nothing from anyone who knew Jesus saying he was crucified, why Paul had to promote this outside of Israel and what real witnesses told rubes when cleaning up Paul's shit. They never said it because it never happened. The best(worst) Christianity could do is claim who supposedly said it besides Paul.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller

There should be a special choice just for aa so he can participate

aa5874

Please, identify the people who knew Jesus.

People knew Jesus??? Who are these "people"??

We have no one who even saw Jesus.

maryhelena

An ahistoricist is simply someone who denies that the figure of the gospel JC is historical.

A mythicist is one who views the gospel JC figure as being a literary figure, a mythological or symbolic figure, a composite figure. i.e. mythicism is an attempt to define, explain, understand, what constitutes the gospel JC figure.

There is nothing in the mythicism position that requires, that rules out, history, and historical figure, being relevant to the gospel writers who created that JC figure.

If some mythicists have understood mythicism to mean the gospel JC story is completely devoid of any historical relevance, that the gospel story is completely and utterly a historizing of a Pauline cosmic JC figure - then they will lose out as far as their theories finding some relevance in the HJ/MJ debate and the search for early christian origins.


A 'mythicism' that denies any historical relevance for the creation of the gospel JC figure is a dead end - it is a pseudo-mythicsm that impacts negatively upon the ahistoricist/mythicist position.

Such a 'mythicism' is, to be blunt - no different in scope than christian fundamentalism. One position wants it all, warts and all - the other wants nothing at all from that gospel JC story.
My two cents for what they are worth......

aa5874

You have introduced an anamoly.

You must have realized that early Christians writers wrote about what they BELIEVED and NOT what actually happened.

Early Christian writers promoted Mythology. Early Christians Believed in Myth characters like Devils, Angels, Demons, Ghosts, Spirits, Gods and Sons of Gods were actual figures of history.

Belief that Gods and Son of God were figures of history does NOT make an Early Christian an historicists.

It is absolutely clear that early Christians writers were NOT writing about historical events. Their Beliefs were virtually identical to the Beliefs of Non-Christian except for the name of their God and Son of God.

What therefore is an inerrantist?? Mythicist or historicist??

Is an inerrantist an historicist because he BELIEVES Jesus existed as the Son of God born of a Ghost and a woman, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud??

After being on this forum for over six years I have come to realize that people who BELIEVE in Myth Gods and Sons of God are POSING as historicists.

It is clear that in the Bible that it is claimed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost, was crucified under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

It is clear that early Christians Believed Jesus was indeed the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was crucified under Pilate.

Early Christians were NOT historicists.

Virtually everybody today, Christian and Non-Christian would agree that people of antiquity who Believed in Zeus, Apollo, Jupiter, Dionysus, Hercules, Perseus and Venus were NOT historicists.

It most remarkable that the very Christians today who promote Mythology, who argue that Gods are figures of history are now pretending that they are historicists when they BELIEVE Jesus is presently alive, and is presently the Son of God who resurrected.

A true historicist is one who Rejects the Belief of the early Christians.

A true mythicist is one who Exposes that early Christians Believed in Myth Gods and Son of Gods--not actual figures of history.

It is of no significance that early Christians believed their Jesus the son of God born of a Ghost was crucified and resurrected in the recent past just as it is of no historical value if someone claimed they saw an Angel today.

It was early Christian writers that argued vehemently that Jesus was born of a Ghost in the RECENT past.

Early Christians were NOT historicists.

maryhelena

What early Christians claimed regarding the gospel JC story is of little value. Perhaps interesting re what they 'saw' or inferred from that story. But, ultimately, of no consequence. Those early christians, whoever they were, had before them what we have today. A gospel JC story. What would have been to their advantage in interpreting that story is their closeness, and thus awareness, of recent Jewish history. The further away from the relevant time period of Jewish history, the more easily interpretations of that gospel story would give way to that story being viewed as a historical account; it's central character of JC being viewed as a historical figure.

Imagine someone writing a story today; a fictional character who is portrayed as a messiah figure, an African messiah figure. The literary story of this fictional character is embellished. The fictional story of a man prepared to lay down his life for his cause - the freedom of his people from political discrimination. A man that spends years of his life in an island prison with a number for his name. The fictional character is eventual successful - a new dawn arises wherein black and white embrace a mutually beneficial future.

Now, publish that story - and what are people going to read into it? What are they going to infer, interpret that story to be referencing?

It's easy is it not? Mandela.

Imagine a few hundred years down the line. Memories of Mandela the man will fade. His reflection in that fictional story, embellished as it is, would become the norm for what Mandela was and what he accomplished.

His names, Nelson, Rolihlahla, tata, are all giving way to Madiba. And it is that name, Madiba, Mandela's clan name, that is the name that is coming to symbolize Mandela for the millions who acknowledge his place in African history. The myth of Madiba is going to be bigger and greater than history can sustain. But the embellishments, the mythology, will not cancel out it's historical backbone. Madiba, Mandela, did live and he did 'save' his people from white political domination.

The gospel JC is, my view, a composite figure. The principle remains however. Mythology can grow around and embellish the lives of historical figures. The 'problem' for interpreting, understanding, the gospel JC figure is that we are dealing with a composite figure. There is no simple equation like there would be with a Madiba mythology. Jewish sensitivities towards turning men into gods has been maintained.

The historical claim of a Madiba story would be that he freed his people from white political domination. History supports that claim. The historical claim of the gospel story is that a Jewish messiah figure, an anointed figure, was executed by Rome. History supports that claim: Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, was executed by Rome, Marc Antony, in 37 b.c. The gospel story remembers, it reflects, this event by replaying the tape of that historical tragedy 70 years later, around 33 c.e.

Yes, there is, of course, more to the gospel JC story - but it's central historical claim of a Jewish messiah figure executed by Rome is historically valid.

-------------
footnote: Of course, 'salvation' derives from no man. Mandela, and the historical figures reflected in the gospel composite JC, notwithstanding. But people are movers and shakers and what is that old saying, comes the moment comes the man....well, something like that....

stephan huller

Who would have known? aa objects