Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

You have contradicted yourself. You argue that the Jesus called Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 20 is the same Jesus in the NT but now you argue he was not important in his lifetime.
Not only "now", but for a long time.
In Ant. 20.20 (written around 90 CE), Jesus called Christ was known then, not because he was important in his lifetime, but because he was credited to have started a new religion which was then prospering.
Jesus if he did exist and was called Christ must mean he was an important Jew in the 1st century.
I know the usual thinking: since Christianity became important, so his (alleged) founder had to be important. And then, since that Jesus has little external evidence, an important Jesus did not exist, so he had to be invented.
But actually, some not important persons started (or rather triggered the start) of important things, not by what they were, but what they did or happened to them (and by only one event).
I already cited Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip. I can also mention the arrest of a street vendor in Tunisia stating the Arab spring (with good and bad consequences), or (fatal) incidents involving a black man and the police (or vigilante), and starting long lasting riots in the US.
Jesus was not a high Priest, a King nor Jewish Messiah so would not be called Christ.
Actually, Jesus was considered as the king-to-be (when the Kingdom comes) by some Jews, at least for a few days before his crucifixion: http://historical-jesus.info/29.html and http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html, but not because he looked and acted "royal", but through fluky circumstances.
The Jews could not have called a crucified criminal the Christ.
I don't think the proto-Christians would consider Jesus as a criminal, more so because he was crucified charged to be (as they believed earlier) king. Other Jews and Gentiles, yes. Later that "shameful" crucifixion became a glorious ultimate sacrifice.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to MrMacSon,
Much of Paul's epistles are written narratives about preaching. Preaching is a form of narrative: a method of narrating ie. verbally/orally.
Yes, I should have said oral/verbal preaching. That came before Paul wrote his epistles.
The first (if not most of them) converts of Paul were because of Paul's oral/verbal preaching.
Bernard, the events1 were narrated to people. To deny the alleged resurrection as a significant narration is disingenuous.
I cannot follow you here. As I said, Jesus was introduced to early converts verbally, without any Christian written material (no texts were written yet).
By "after his death", I was thinking about the second event from Josephus' works about the tenure of Pilate (see it at http://historical-jesus.info/digest.htm).
Yes, the resurrection (rather Jesus' spirit saved in heaven) was then likely wished for and then believed thanks to some OT passages (and Philo of Alexandria's works), but at first in the oral/verbal domain.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Bernard
But actually, some not important persons started (or rather triggered the start) of important things, not by what they were, but what they did or happened to them (and by only one event).

I already cited Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip. I can also mention the arrest of a street vendor in Tunisia stating the Arab spring (with good and bad consequences), or (fatal) incidents involving a black man and the police (or vigilante), and starting long lasting riots in the US.
Your examples show that incidents have consequences, and that sometimes those consequences persist. Those propositions aren't controversial, nor relevant here.

As your recital shows, the particular names of the several police shooting victims or of the arrested street vendor aren't crucial to communicating the importance of the events they found themselves entangled in. You managed not to name them even when you were talking about them. That hardly supports Josephus exerting himself to name somebody while he was talking about somebody else.

Suppose you did mention, say, Daniel Shaver, perhaps in the context of discussing something that happened to his widow. Even for an American audience, you would do well to explain why Daniel's name comes up (he was shot last year by an Arizona police officer under doubtful circumstances). For a non-American audience, I would think an explanation was all but obligatory.

Josephus apparently didn't feel the need to explain "Jesus called Christ" to a largely non-Christian first audience, even though his intention must have been to explain who James was. Meanwhile, James was supposedly a big shot in his own right at the time of the trial, a major figure in a visible movement which was still in the news when Josephus was writing, unlike James' hard-luck brother who did nothing very effective or even much distinctive until long after he'd died. With plenty to say about James, Josephus mentions the personally insignificant brother instead, and nothing else to distinguish James.

This piece doesn't fit well in the puzzle, however nicely it harmonizes with the picture on the box.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:02 pm....
In Ant. 20.20 (written around 90 CE), Jesus called Christ was known then, not because he was important in his lifetime, but because he was credited to have started a new religion which was then prospering.
You still contradict yourself. You use gMark which states that thousands of people followed or went to see Jesus. In addition, Antiquities of the Jews does not state anywhere that Jesus called the anointed was credited with starting a new religion and does not claim at all that there was a new prospering religion
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:02 pm....
I know the usual thinking: since Christianity became important, so his (alleged) founder had to be important. And then, since that Jesus has little external evidence, an important Jesus did not exist, so he had to be invented.
But actually, some not important persons started (or rather triggered the start) of important things, not by what they were, but what they did or happened to them (and by only one event).
I already cited Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip. I can also mention the arrest of a street vendor in Tunisia stating the Arab spring (with good and bad consequences), or (fatal) incidents involving a black man and the police (or vigilante), and starting long lasting riots in the US.
Your argument does not make much sense. Rosa Parks was never ever considered or credited as the leader and founder of the Civil Rights Movement.
By the way, it is claimed in the NT that it was a Promised Holy Ghost from heaven which gave the disciples power to preach the Gospel.

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:02 pm....
Actually, Jesus was considered as the king-to-be (when the Kingdom comes) by some Jews, at least for a few days before his crucifixion: http://historical-jesus.info/29.html and http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html, but not because he looked and acted "royal", but through fluky circumstances.
Again, you contradict yourself. It is quite absurd to suggest Jesus was considered as the king to be but was still not considered important in his lifetime.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:02 pm....
I don't think the proto-Christians would consider Jesus as a criminal, more so because he was crucified charged to be (as they believed earlier) king. Other Jews and Gentiles, yes. Later that "shameful" crucifixion became a glorious ultimate sacrifice.

Cordially, Bernard
Again, you mutter contradictions. If Jesus did exist and his followers believed he was charged to be king then he must have been important.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

That hardly supports Josephus exerting himself to name somebody while he was talking about somebody else.
Josephus named Jesus called Christ as an identifier for James, because that Jesus was known by his audience (around 90 CE) as the alleged founder of a new religion.
Meanwhile, James was supposedly a big shot in his own right at the time of the trial, a major figure in a visible movement which was still in the news when Josephus was writing
But his audience might not have known that (if ever James was considered such a big shot). James was not the founder of a religion and his fame, if any, might have been limited among Jews & Christians alike in only the eastern part of the Roman empire.
Anyway, the purpose of Josephus was to explain the removal of a high priest, not to go into details about James and Jesus, called Christ.
They are other instances when Josephus used somebody apparently well known to identify someone else (such as Pallas for Felix, Ant. 20.137), or even (many times) somebody not well known in order to identify someone against others with the same name (and that why Josephus added "called Christ", because there were many other "Jesus" in these days).
a major figure in a visible movement which was still in the news when Josephus was writing
The movement led by James was fairly local and centered on Jerusalem. Furthermore James and the pillars never were Christians (http://historical-jesus.info/108.html). So they could not have been known as central to a new religion which was then spreading all over the Roman empire.
James' hard-luck brother who did nothing very effective or even much distinctive until long after he'd died.
Yes, but Jesus was credited as the founder of Christianity, and that's why him, called Christ, was known by Josephus' audience around 90 CE.
With plenty to say about James, Josephus mentions the personally insignificant brother instead, and nothing else to distinguish James
Josephus did not say plenty about James, nor did he have to. But he felt the need to identify him further than just "James/Jacob", a fairly common name then.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Bernard Muller »

You still contradict yourself. You use gMark which states that thousands of people followed or went to see Jesus. In addition, Antiquities of the Jews does not state anywhere that Jesus called the anointed was credited with starting a new religion and does not claim at all that there was a new prospering religion
Did I say I accept whatever "Mark" wrote in his gospel? No, just small parts of it.
About the alleged miraculous feedings, this is what I wrote about them: http://historical-jesus.info/88.html
I certainly did not say "Antiquities of the Jews does not state anywhere that Jesus called the anointed was credited with starting a new religion and does not claim at all that there was a new prospering religion". That comes from other sources.
Your argument does not make much sense. Rosa Parks was never ever considered or credited as the leader and founder of the Civil Rights Movement.
However, Rosa Parks was said to have been the mother of the Civil Rights Movement. She was not credited as the leader or the founder, because she was not so. But Jesus was credited as the founder of Christianity thanks to the efforts of Paul & other apostles and the gospels.
By the way, it is claimed in the NT that it was a Promised Holy Ghost from heaven which gave the disciples power to preach the Gospel.
So what? I certainly do not believe in that. I explained my position here: http://historical-jesus.info/12.html
Again, you contradict yourself. It is quite absurd to suggest Jesus was considered as the king to be but was still not considered important in his lifetime.
Yes, but that was only by some Jews and for a short time before the crucifixion, which likely led to the (mocking) sign "king of the Jews", which also could be considered as an official statement. That was more than enough to start a sect. How this king thing came about: Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist had a lot to do with that, as I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Giuseppe »

My perplexity about your Jesus agnosticism (or better named Jesus indifferentism?) is that it is a position not at all compatible with the strong need (by both historicists and mythicists) of giving a positive case of the Christian Origins. A case considered positive insofar it gives the answer (yes or - AUT - no, tertium non datur) to the question: Did Jesus Exist?

I explain better my point: the possibiliter ergo probabiliter fallacy happens when:

it is possible that Jesus existed.

"Therefore" Jesus existed.



But the same fallacy occurs when:

It is possible that Jesus didn't exist.

"Therefore" Jesus didn't exist.


Neil seems reluctant to risk this fallacy in both the cases. But the point is that the Hurtado's case proves that it is sufficient (for someone who wants Jesus to be historical) simply to prove the absence of an archangel Jesus in order to be strongly persuaded that Jesus existed. Equally, for someone who likes the mythicist case the silence about a HJ is sufficient to choose with persuasion the mythicist reconstruction.

My point is that it is frankly impossible to give up to take position in this question. That both the camps have only need of proving the silence (in the survived evidence) about the opposing view to declare victory.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:43 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:14 am
Hi Neil. Could you clarify please ?

Is your argument that although 1st century CE Christians believed in a recently executed historical Jesus, we cannot tell if this Jesus really existed or not ?

Or is your argument that we cannot tell whether 1st century CE Christians believed in a historical Jesus or not ?

Were there 1st century CE Christians?
According to Tacitus and Suetonius there were.

Andrew Criddle
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by iskander »

And also the MISHNAH

6:
Now let us consider the rabbinic attitude to the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the daily liturgy. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel contains the following statement:
Both Rav Mattanah and Rabbi Shemu'el bar-Naĥman say that logically we should recite the Ten Commandments [liturgically] every day; why do we not do so? - [to refute] the claims of heretics that these alone were given to Moses at Sinai [Berakhot 9b].

The heretics referred to in this text are presumably the early Christians of the first century CE. So we have here an extraordinary statement to the effect that a logical Jewish liturgy was changed in order to combat heretical (and possibly missionary) claims. This statement of the Yerushalmi is also echoed by the Bavli [Berakhot 12a] -
http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/tamid/tam05.html
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Why I don't see myself as a Christ Mythicist

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Bernard

I won't labor these points too much more, but I'll play another round.
Josephus named Jesus called Christ as an identifier for James, because that Jesus was known by his audience (around 90 CE) as the alleged founder of a new religion.
So, in your view, Tacitus was wasting a similar audience's time explaining to them what a Christ was? They already knew? They just had a funny pronunication for it (Chrest instead of Christ) which Tacitus had to clear up by telling them the whole story from the beginning? Interesting take.
James was not the founder of a religion
How not? Supposedly he's the first head of the oldest Christian group (or Christian antecedent, if you prefer; it's still a religion focused on Jesus), in its place of origin.
Anyway, the purpose of Josephus was to explain the removal of a high priest, not to go into details about James and Jesus, called Christ.
The high priest was removed because defendants, plural, were tried by an illegal assembly convened by the said high priest. Nobody was removed because one of the defendants was Jesus Christ's kin. Mentioning James especially, and not identifying the other defendants, served some purpose of its own, and saying only who James' brother was, in context, sufficient to achieve that purpose.

Whether you agree or not, surely you can see why some people think James' brother was one of the Jesuses who served in the immediate aftermath of the incident. That would explain why mentioning James' brother, and nothing else about him, was both worthwhile and enough.
Furthermore James and the pillars never were Christians
Christians is an English-language word which describes a wide variety of denominations and specific religious viewpoints. It covers the religious movement which James is traditionally said to have led.

Cordially, Paul (really cordially, handshakes all around)
Post Reply