The Best Argument Against Nihilistic Mythicism

[stephan happy huller]

I guess there is the example of the epistles of Anacharsis. Not exactly the same but similar

[stephan happy huller]

Anacharsis was already legendary. I can't think of an example of a wholly invented figure having letters attributed to him. If the Marcionites were earliest second century at least, let's suppose that Ishu was a supernatural being understood to be attested in the Pentateuch. Fine he's a fictitious but otherwise attested character. But what about his apostle, his spokesman? Fictitious and unattested? Seems an unlikely formula for success. Two wholly fictitious figures? One wrapped inside the other? And then Marcion as the shadowy first theologian of this fictitious maitroyshka doll? Really? This is more likely than assuming at least Paul goes back to something historical?


Got to build Lego ...

[Blood]

Until today, I thought Enoch was a legendary figure. But we have an epistle attributed to him. Hallelujah! Enoch is real.

[Blood]

Until today, I thought Jeremiah was a legendary figure. But we have an epistle attributed to him. Hallelujah! Jeremiah is real.

[stephan happy huller]

But its not the same thing. Celsus attests to Paul's writings c 176 CE. Marcion c 130 CE or earlier. Marcion invented Paul? Marcion was Paul? Maybe but still not fictitious

[stephan happy huller]

I guess the only scenario that works for you is if Marcion invented Paul inventing Jesus. But is that really the most likely scenario given the state of the evidence? By your logic we also have to consider Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus and Irenaeus inventing Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus as well as Eusebius inventing Irenaeus inventing Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus. I've been trained in this sort of logic by mountainman. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line on what's most likely?

I say - whatever Marcion said as our first known witness, that's the most likely historical scenario. But that's no easy task to figure out.

[Blood]

You said, "I can't think of an example of a wholly invented figure having letters attributed to him."

I gave you two examples of epistolary literature, known to Christians, where wholly invented figures had letters attributed to them.

You said, "That's not the same thing."

This is known as Special Pleading.

Was Paul invented? I don't know. He seems like a plausible figure. But then so does Jesus. Plausibility does not equal historical reality, particularly not when one can demonstrate Christians manufacturing fake plausibility scenarios in nearly everything they wrote.

[Blood]

I guess the only scenario that works for you is if Marcion invented Paul inventing Jesus. But is that really the most likely scenario given the state of the evidence? By your logic we also have to consider Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus and Irenaeus inventing Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus as well as Eusebius inventing Irenaeus inventing Polycarp inventing Marcion inventing Paul inventing Jesus. I've been trained in this sort of logic by mountainman. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line on what's most likely?

I say - whatever Marcion said as our first known witness, that's the most likely historical scenario. But that's no easy task to figure out.

I prefer the argument put forth by Hyam Maccoby in his books The Mythmaker and especially Paul and Hellenism: Paul is completely implausible as a Jewish philosopher of ANY stripe. He hates "the Jews." He hates the Torah. He hates everything except his pure, clean, innocent gentile buddies who have been saved. They're the only ones (besides him) who can actually understand and read the Bible correctly to find its true, secret, hidden meaning: God hates Jews and loves Gentiles.

Don't tell me I'm obligated to take this nonsense seriously simply because you can't think of any alternative scenarios. "Paul" is an anonymous series of Christian apologists. Period. Why didn't they use their real names? I don't know. Why did they invent "the good Jew who believes in Jesus"? I don't know. Perhaps authenticity? Theologians have imaginative ways for solving their problems.

Why did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon? I don't know. I'm not obligated to come up with some counter-explanation because "there's no precedent for somebody translating Egyptian from engraved plates buried in New York therefore it must be true."

[stephan happy huller]

I hate it when people cite meaningless scholarly cliches like "special pleading." Your examples weren't close enough to the case of the Pauline letters to allow for using them as a parallel. It's like Jay's use of comic books and movies to defend mythicism. Paul wasn't legendary or famous enough to justify the creation of fake letters as in my example of Anacharsis. Are you suggesting that there is a pattern of creating not only Biblical texts but Biblical figures out of thin air? Jeremiah didn't exist? I am trying to see how you could argue that the development of the epistles of Paul are close enough to the production of Jeremiah.

[stephan happy huller]

But why isn't it appropriate to extend your arguments against Paul to Marcion, Polycarp, Irenaeus etc? Why are Paul and Jesus unique for mythicist attention?