If Mythicism Was a Central Concern of the Earliest Christians Why Don't the Church Fathers Mention It?

[GakuseiDon]

Surely the purpose of the Church Fathers heresiological efforts was to embarrass their rivals. What could have been more embarrassing than an acknowledgement that their opponents claimed Jesus never existed or that the gospel narrative was a fiction? Given that we never hear this, how is that explained?

Not only that, the Church Fathers seemed to have chosen mythicists' texts to form what will eventually become the bulk of the New Testament canon, according to mythicists.

[Giuseppe]

Other great error of Secret Alias: I think that the great concern of catholics was not "mythicism" (epistle to Hebrews is both a proto-catholic and a mythicist proof-text) but the idea that Jesus was not the Christ.

[Secret Alias]

back to form with the unnecessarily sexual analogies

I don't think they are unnecessary. There is a remarkable parallel between all crypto traditions - i.e. religious and sexual. For example:

1. the bit about Christians being gay in Tertullian (Apology) as well as the story in Hegesippus which may or may not have been reflected in the Letter to Theodore about Christian orgies.
2. the Bulgar/bugger thing in the medieval period.
3. the time I lived in Bellevue besides this very attractive Columbian lady whose then boyfriend was from Izmir. I may have told this story before. We were invited over for lunch and I heard that he was from Izmir. I mentioned my favorite crypto-Jews the Donmeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nmeh. The conversation went something like this.

Me: I've always wanted to go to Izmir
Him: Why?
Me: To see the Dönmeh
Him: (eyes bulge uncomfortable silence)
Me: (eventually) You don't like the Dönmeh?
Him: No I am okay with everyone. Live and let live. Why are you so interested in them?
Me: long explanation about Jews in Turkey
He starts killing himself laughing. As Dönmeh in Turkish means transvestites. https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020 ... ret-part-i

The reality is that ANY crypto-tradition eventually becomes linked with sexual depravity.

[neilgodfrey]

It's a good question and I believe it points us to anachronistic concepts implicit in the way many of us frame the question of Jesus' existence today.

1. Universal belief in the historical existence of a figure is not evidence for the historical reality of that figure. Example, Heracles. Ancient Greeks (many of them) believed that Heracles was not only historical but was still active in contemporary historical events.

2. The way the myths were constructed and retold, here a little, there a little, was a tantalizing way to encourage belief in the historical reality of figures like Heracles. (See the works of Sarah Johnston.)

3. We associate midrash with artificial literary devices but in the Second Temple era and its aftermath midrash was seen as a way to discovering truth of some kind, even newly revealed truths in the holy writ.

4. As per Sarah Johnston's observations the fact of contradictions emerging in the evolving narratives only added to curiosity about the figures rather than blanket disbelief. Ditto today among fundamentalist believers always looking for ways to reconcile "apparent" contradictions.

There is no reason to think that any believers at any time "believed" that Jesus did not exist historically.

Certainly if -- and it's a hypothetical, not a fact -- the author of the Gospel of Mark wrote of Jesus as a personification of Israel and a figure with whom a dispossessed and probably persecuted few identified, then that process of identification itself would encourage belief in the reality of that figure.

Besides, despite all the claims to the contrary, I cannot help but think that the evidence actually points to Paul (and all early Christians) believing in a Jesus figure who was crucified on earth, even if he only appeared on earth for a few hours for that purpose.

Midrash was not considered a mythical creation, but a gateway to divine revelation of truth. Jesus was, by and large, believed to have been a historical figure from the beginning.

[MrMacSon]

... the Church Fathers seemed to have chosen mythicists' texts to form what will eventually become the bulk of the New Testament canon, according to mythicists.

Which Church Fathers are you referring to (as choosing the texts that became the bulk of the NT canon)?

Which specific texts are you referring to?

• Are you inferring the NT texts at some point -in some early iteration- were mythicist?

[MrMacSon]

"But Christ – if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias [Elijah] come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.” Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 8.

" ... this 'so-called Christ' of yours was dishonourable and inglorious ...", Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 32

"... it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made.” Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 36

“ ... it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him who [is said to have] suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ.” Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 72

[Secret Alias]

But again, the Church Fathers were not afraid of going beyond what the evidence actually supported. Why, if it was widely accepted that Jesus never existed and the gospel was some make-believe fable wasn't that reported in Irenaeus or Justin Martyr? I think what mythicists often do is say 'the only way that we can go from A to B is to assume C = i.e. that early Christians acknowledged mythicist principles. Since Ben doesn't like my overtly sexual examples, it's like smelling Durian fruit for the first time and going 'ewwww!' (disgusting) https://youtu.be/OCgxSiGF5ng https://youtu.be/RgzsUWPrf_s and assuming that everyone else in the Malay marketplace is disgusted by the same smell. Yes we're all facing the same phenomena but in the end the same thing produces different experiences. The fact that we can only reconcile the data from early Christianity as 'nonsense' or 'make-believe' doesn't mean that the ancients did so.

[Ben C. Smith]

Since Ben doesn't like my overtly sexual examples, it's like smelling Durian fruit for the first time and going 'ewwww!' (disgusting) https://youtu.be/RgzsUWPrf_s and assuming that everyone else in the Malay marketplace is disgusted by the same smell.

First, I never said I did not like them. I said they were unnecessary. Not necessarily the same thing!

Second, that said, I by far prefer culinary examples like the one you just pulled out of Southeast Asia. The more of those the better! (I myself have never tried the actual Durian fruit, but I did once have some Durian flavored pastries; the smell was indeed atrocious, reminding me of soiled diapers, but I did not mind the flavor at all.)

[Secret Alias]

The point is that there are so many examples of cultural differences out there. The way mythicists rush to assume that what is said by so-and-so 'can only mean' ... the desired outcome ... is ridiculous. The stronger proof is the lack of outrage among the Church Fathers. The ancients simply had a more elastic understanding of reality and the involvement in reality of supernatural forces. I see absolutely no evidence that the gospel narrative was taken to have occurred out of 'ordinary time' - i.e. in Mircea Eliade's notion of time/eternity. The emphasis of Luke on a specific date is problematic for the mythicist thesis. Even if it is argued (as I have done) that 20/21 CE was the original dating, NO ONE imagined that the crucifixion occurred 'out of ordinary time.' Instead the Christians may have fought over the dating. I see an obsession over chronology from the very beginning (cf. the use of Daniel 9:24 - 27 in Mark) not a refutation of dating and the preference for some 'mythic world beyond time.'

[MrMacSon]

But again, the Church Fathers were not afraid of going beyond what the evidence actually supported.

• I think it'd be helpful if you could be more specific about what evidence you might have in mind, and which Church Fathers.

Why, if it was widely accepted that Jesus never existed and the gospel was some make-believe fable wasn't that reported in Irenaeus or Justin Martyr?

• "if it was widely accepted that Jesus never existed"
  1. when? where?
  2. "if"

• "the gospel"
  • yeah, riiiiigght

• "Why...wasn't 'that' reported in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus?"
  • Both talk earnestly about theology as fact. Neither acknowledges theology is not real.
  • Texts questioning the veracity of the theologies are unlikely to have survived.

I think what mythicists often do is say 'the only way that we can go from A to B is to assume C = i.e. that early Christians acknowledged mythicist principles.

• It's not clear what you're referring to.
  • where do mythicists often say things like that?
  • do you have anything specific in mind?

... The fact that we can only reconcile the data from early Christianity as 'nonsense' or 'make-believe' doesn't mean that the ancients did so.

• I'm not aware of many or even of any discussions of or propositions about Christian origins (in the last 100 yrs or so, and especially in discussion forums like this) are based on present-day notions that 'the ancients'' thought the accounts they were engaging with was nonsense or make-believe.