The Propaganda War Against Mythicism [Vridar]

[Leucius Charinus]

Michael Grant 2004, pp. 199–200:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."

You don't mean historicity in any significant sense. The notion wasn't available to the vastest majority of the ancient population ....

UNADDRESSED is this statement ...... I see a direct equivalence between those who "confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" and those who "deny the historicity of Jesus", and so it would appear does Michael Grant.

Docetism

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure ....... Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them.

A very simplified history of the obscuration, suppression and censorship of Docetism is as follows:

(1) "HERESY LAWS" operated from the 4th to the 14th century. (Death to the heretics) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism
(2) "BLASPHEMY LAWS" operated from the 15th to the 18th/19th century. (Death or prison to the blasphemers) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism
(3) APPEARANCE of MYTHICIST THEORIES from the 18th/19th century

I have not seen any detractors of Mythicism mention or address the heresy and blasphemy laws that operated between the 4th and the 18th/19th century.
This to my mind is quite significant. These people are not addressing the historical evidence of the obscuration and suppression of heresy and blasphemy. They are ignoring the negative evidence against their opinions; they are glossing over the centuries of church barbarism, persecution and censorship.

Propaganda:

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

Statements (such as Ehrman's) like: "the idea that Jesus did not exist is “a modern myth” made up in the 18th century and with no ancient precedents" may be classified as propaganda on the basis that it presents only one side of the argument. By their failure to mention and to address the historical evidence of the obscuration and suppression of heresy and blasphemy (by the church and the state), these people are not doing history. They are engaged in apologetic propaganda and polemic.

[spin]

Michael Grant 2004,

When you cite sources one usually includes the name of the work so one knows what the fuck you are citing from. Grant died in 2004 at the age of 89. Are you citing from his 1977 book on Jesus ("Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels") in some more recent reprint? If so, even though the work was dated to its printing in 2004, it will say on its publisher info page that it was written in 1977. That is the date you need to cite, though you can also include the reprinting: 1977 (2004).

You don't mean historicity in any significant sense. The notion wasn't available to the vastest majority of the ancient population ....

UNADDRESSED is this statement ...... I see a direct equivalence between those who "confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" and those who "deny the historicity of Jesus", and so it would appear does Michael Grant.

This stuff doesn't help you with the notion of historicity in the context of ancient people. Please reread what I said after you switch the analyzer on. You'll see I said, "You don't mean historicity in any significant sense." You seem just to be confusing the claim of reality with historicity. Ancient people might not have had difficulty ostensibly discerning between real and unreal, but they knew nothing about historicity.


When will one get the idea that historicity is about what can be shown through the application of historical methodology?? Because it can be shown implies that it is (probably) real, but it is an error to equate the two notions and talk about historicity (and project the idea onto ancients) when in fact what you mean is "(perceived to be) real (at some point in time)".

[Leucius Charinus]

One needs to stop dithering in semantics and deal with the Michael Grant quote, which basically presents the case in question. Here's the quote again, which is from Grant's book Jesus (2004) [1977] Rigel. ISBN 978-1-898799-88-7 as disclosed in the WIKI article on Docetism

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."

Also, the following historical evidence continues to be swept aside ....

(1) "HERESY LAWS" operated from the 4th to the 14th century. (Death to the heretics) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism
(2) "BLASPHEMY LAWS" operated from the 15th to the 18th/19th century. (Death or prison to the blasphemers) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism

[spin]

One needs to stop dithering in semantics and deal with the Michael Grant quote, which basically presents the case in question.

No dithering here, mountainman. I'm trying to get you to cut back on the confusion. When you misapply terms you not only confuse your reader, but you confuse yourself. Your repeated quote from Grant doesn't change that fact, though it is worth noting Grant himself mixes the notions of myth and docetism. And I have no interest in your up the garden path "evidence that is swept aside", as it is beyond the scope of this forum.

[Leucius Charinus]

... it is worth noting Grant himself mixes the notions of myth and docetism.

Isn't it lucky we have spin here to correct Michael Grant on matters of history.

[spin]

... it is worth noting Grant himself mixes the notions of myth and docetism.

Isn't it lucky we have spin here to correct Michael Grant on matters of history.

They are not, in themselves, matters of history.

[Leucius Charinus]

Assertions without supporting argument or evidence fall by the wayside.

Also, the following historical evidence continues to be swept aside ....

(1) "HERESY LAWS" operated from the 4th to the 14th century. (Death to the heretics) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism
(2) "BLASPHEMY LAWS" operated from the 15th to the 18th/19th century. (Death or prison to the blasphemers) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism

... up the garden path "evidence that is swept aside", as it is beyond the scope of this forum.

Sweeping aside the critical examination of the transmission of texts by scribes from the early centuries of the common era to the modern era is NOT beyond the scope of this forum, unless one uncritically accepts that God Himself has preserved his own holy writs of Christianity (and indeed Islam). The overall assessment of the organisation which on the one hand copied the canonical manuscripts with tens of thousands of errors, additions and interpolations, both innocent and fraudulent, and on the other hand destroyed burnt and utterly misrepresented the non canonical manuscripts of the gnostics, is not beyond the scope of discussion unless one insists on presenting one-sided dogmatic propaganda as historical truth.

Even a superficial assessment of history reveals that the organisation known as the Christian church has been responsible for the deaths of "numbers without end" of its detractors, commencing from the 4th century and continuing for at least thirteen hundred years. Mythicism in all its myriad forms, from weak to strong, has been suppressed and censored, and its arguments obscured by heresiological dogma. The proponents of the HJ hypothesis - even the most high profile ones such as Ehrman et al - at every turn have failed to even mention this mountain of negative evidence against their position. This practice is called propagandising.

[spin]

Assertions without supporting argument or evidence fall by the wayside.

Also, the following historical evidence continues to be swept aside ....

(1) "HERESY LAWS" operated from the 4th to the 14th century. (Death to the heretics) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism
(2) "BLASPHEMY LAWS" operated from the 15th to the 18th/19th century. (Death or prison to the blasphemers) <<===== Not mentioned by the detractors of Mythicism

... up the garden path "evidence that is swept aside", as it is beyond the scope of this forum.

[/size]

Sweeping aside the critical examination of the transmission of texts by scribes from the early centuries of the common era to the modern era is NOT beyond the scope of this forum, unless one uncritically accepts that God Himself has preserved his own holy writs of Christianity (and indeed Islam). The overall assessment of the organisation which on the one hand copied the canonical manuscripts with tens of thousands of errors, additions and interpolations, both innocent and fraudulent, and on the other hand destroyed burnt and utterly misrepresented the non canonical manuscripts of the gnostics, is not beyond the scope of discussion unless one insists on presenting one-sided dogmatic propaganda as historical truth.

Even a superficial assessment of history reveals that the organisation known as the Christian church has been responsible for the deaths of "numbers without end" of its detractors, commencing from the 4th century and continuing for at least thirteen hundred years. Mythicism in all its myriad forms, from weak to strong, has been suppressed and censored, and its arguments obscured by heresiological dogma. The proponents of the HJ hypothesis - even the most high profile ones such as Ehrman et al - at every turn have failed to even mention this mountain of negative evidence against their position. This practice is called propagandising.

- Isn't that mountainman up there in the garden?
- Yeah, you're right it is. What's he doing up there?
- Well... umm... I think he's communing.
- Yeah? Who with?
- The great beyond.
- Beyond what?
- Beyond the pale, I guess.
- Oh, right. Pass the Fruit Loops, will ya?

[Leucius Charinus]

As attractive as the mythist theory is, and as creative as the radicals are in their theories, there is no actual basis anywhere for an argument for an ancient belief in a mythical Jesus unless one simply takes pieces out of context - i.e. deconstructs out of context the texts COMPRISING the UNIFIED SET of the official canon of the New Testament........

This is not actually correct Duvduv because there does exist an actual basis for an expressed written belief in a mythical "non-flesh" Jesus. Firstly within the canonical books there are the letters of John which warns against such a belief, and states that such a belief was widespread. This has been dealt with already in this thread. Secondly there are a number of the non canonical books in which there are clear statements which may be interpreted as espousing such a belief. Some of these are listed on the WIKI page about Docetism

• Non-canonical texts alluding to a Docetic Jesus
  
  * Gospel of Phillip
  * Second Treatise of the Great Seth
  * Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
  * Gospel of Judas
  * In "Against the Fundamental Epistle ***", Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
  * Gospel of Peter
  * Acts of John

Other books might be added to this list on the basis that they present a Jesus of Literary Fiction. In fact many such books exist within the non canonical corpus, which is why many academics have summarised the genre of (some of) these books as "Hellenistic Romance Narratives".

*** It should be noted that, in direct contradiction to the statements (propaganda) of Augustine, although a number of sources have now been collected in regard to the ("official") canon of the books of the Manichaeans, this book mentioned by Augustine is NOT mentioned.

[spin]

As attractive as the mythist theory is, and as creative as the radicals are in their theories, there is no actual basis anywhere for an argument for an ancient belief in a mythical Jesus unless one simply takes pieces out of context - i.e. deconstructs out of context the texts COMPRISING the UNIFIED SET of the official canon of the New Testament........

This is not actually correct Duvduv because there does exist an actual basis for an expressed written belief in a mythical "non-flesh" Jesus. Firstly within the canonical books there are the letters of John which warns against such a belief, and states that such a belief was widespread. This has been dealt with already in this thread. Secondly there are a number of the non canonical books in which there are clear statements which may be interpreted as espousing such a belief. Some of these are listed on the WIKI page about Docetism

What is with this persisent confusion of docetism with mythicism? Docetists believed that there was a Jesus and that his was a real presence in this world, but his earthly body was an illusion.