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

[Giuseppe]

Ancient historians themselves did that. Not me, not "us". I assumed anyone interested in following up the original claim would have clicked on the links I provided with it.

historians "who did that": have we similar historians in the case of Christ? No, according to the consensus (even if I think that the answer is yes per Ignatius's reference to archives consulted by early Jewish doubters). Hence, still, if you believe that Jesus was considered as earthly by Paul, then accordingly your title of 'Jesus Agnostic' seems a bit falsified.

[neilgodfrey]

Ancient historians themselves did that. Not me, not "us". I assumed anyone interested in following up the original claim would have clicked on the links I provided with it.

historians "who did that": have we similar historians in the case of Christ? No, according to the consensus (even if I think that the answer is yes per Ignatius's reference to archives consulted by early Jewish doubters). Hence, still, if you believe that Jesus was considered as earthly by Paul, then accordingly your title of 'Jesus Agnostic' seems a bit falsified.

The ancient historians testify to popular beliefs that Heracles and other heroes were contemporary figures or of the very recent past.

I never said I believe Jesus was an earthly figure in Paul's writings. I said that "even if" we interpret Paul's writings to indicate that he believed Jesus at least appeared on earth for a few hours, etc. I think that is a reasonable interpretation, but it's not one I choose to "believe" -- it is one that I treat as a reasonable hypothesis, a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. For all I know the interpretation might be wrong, so I am not certain.

I try to exercise a little humility where the evidence is ambiguous -- as I think you should appreciate

It is surely unreasonable to conclude that a hypothesis in a magic man on earth necessarily means we are talking about a historical figure. That is simply absurd. Most imaginary or mythical figures in literature, I suggest, have been earthly -- yet not historical.

[Giuseppe]

you may be correct, but in my view, if I place myself under the hypothesis that Paul's Jesus was earthly and mythical, then I would have no way to distinguish myself from a minimalist historicist. Hence, how can I call myself, in that case, sincerely and honestly, a 'Jesus Agnostic', when even the distinction between me and a minimalist historicist is so nuanced to the point of complete identity?

The Doherty/Carrier mythicism doesn't allow for similar paradoxes, therefore it gives more confidence in using (in a way intellectually honest) titles to label one's views.

[neilgodfrey]

you may be correct, but in my view, if I place myself under the hypothesis that Paul's Jesus was earthly and mythical, then I would have no way to distinguish myself from a minimalist historicist.

Even if Paul's letters were interpreted through and through as referring to a Jesus who had a career on earth we would still lack any evidence for the historicity of that Jesus. All we would have would be the testimony of a man who never met Jesus (except as a heavenly figure after his death). We would have no grounds for accepting those claims in the letters as evidence of a historical figure because that figure Jesus is in those letters entirely a theological figure. He has no depiction, description, delineation of any kind apart from a theological one.

The grounds for accepting as historical any person or event of ancient times are the same in principle as they are for accepting any person or event as historical today. We test the sources for contemporaneity and reliability of the author and his sources, seek corroboration, etc. Even if we interpreted Paul's letters as speaking of a "historical Jesus" they could not pass the most fundamental tests any historian rightfully applies to sources.

[Giuseppe]

you may be correct, but in my view, if I place myself under the hypothesis that Paul's Jesus was earthly and mythical, then I would have no way to distinguish myself from a minimalist historicist.

Even if Paul's letters were interpreted through and through as referring to a Jesus who had a career on earth we would still lack any evidence for the historicity of that Jesus. All we would have would be the testimony of a man who never met Jesus (except as a heavenly figure after his death). We would have no grounds for accepting those claims in the letters as evidence of a historical figure because that figure Jesus is in those letters entirely a theological figure. He has no depiction, description, delineation of any kind apart from a theological one.

The grounds for accepting as historical any person or event of ancient times are the same in principle as they are for accepting any person or event as historical today. We test the sources for contemporaneity and reliability of the author and his sources, seek corroboration, etc. Even if we interpreted Paul's letters as speaking of a "historical Jesus" they could not pass the most fundamental tests any historian rightfully applies to sources.

you have listed your reasons to be Jesus Agnostic and I think that you are sincere.

But frankly I would doubt sincerely about Jesus because he is under the Sword of Damocles of a crucifixion placed in outer space by the early Christians, not for the reasons listed by you (reasons that alone would be not sufficient, from my POV, to proclaim agnosticism).

[MrMacSon]

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

... most of the books in the NT are from ahistoricist sources. Using Dr Carrier and Doherty:

Text	Comment
4 Canonical Gospels	Mark is mythicist, others unclear
Romans	Mythicist
First Corinthians	Mythicist
Second Corinthians	Mythicist
Galatians	Mythicist
Ephesians	Mythicist
Philippians	Mythicist
Colossians	Mythicist
First Thessalonians	Mythicist
Second Thessalonians	Historicist
First Timothy	Historicist passage, though may be interpolation into mythicist text
Second Timothy	Unclear
Titus	Unclear
Philemon	Mythicist
Hebrews	Mythicist
Acts	Historicist
James	Possibly mythicist (Doherty)
First Peter	Unclear
Second Peter	Forged historicist letter (Carrier)
First John	Forged historicist letter (Carrier)
Second John	Unclear
Third John	Unclear
Book of Revelation	Mythicist

"Unclear" means not really enough evidence either way, or the mythicist author doesn't evaluate the book either way.
.

• Ah, ok. I wasn't aware whole books had been classified that way (though I was aware there was an inference much of their content suggests, shall we say, a nebulous Jesus).
  
  [Mark might be considered mythicist b/c it is thought to build on Paul. I briefly address the relative roles of Mark and the epistles below]

On the NT books generally, Doherty writes in his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", from page 17:

• [with some omissions by me, MrMacSon, more spacing, and added italics and quotation marks ' ' ] ...

.
From the record of what the New Testament epistles do not say, we will look at a puzzle piece that may be called "The Missing Equation."

Those 22 documents in the latter part of the New Testament ... are the product of about a dozen different writers, Paul being the most prominent.

In them, one encounters over 500 references to the object of all these writers' faith: "Jesus" or "Christ" or a combination of these names, or "the Son," plus a few to "the Lord" meaning Christ.

... is it feasible that, in all this discussion and defense of their faith, nowhere would anyone, by choice, accident or necessity, happen to use words which would identify the divine Son and Christ they are all talking about with his recent incarnation: whether this be the man Jesus of Nazareth known to us from the Gospels, born of Mary and died under Pilate, or some other 'genuine Jesus' unearthed by modern critical scholarship?

As astonishing as such a silence may seem, an 'equation' such as "Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and Messiah" is missing from all the early Christian correspondence. The Jesus of the epistles is not spoken of as a man who had recently lived.

There are two passages in the epistles which present apparent exceptions to what has just been said, plus a third which could be claimed to fall into such a category, and they will be addressed immediately so as not to compromise the argument.

Doherty then gives and analyses those three examples: 1 Thess 2:15-16, 1 Tim 6:13 and 1 Cor 11:23-26. He continues:

.
Thus, we are left with an entire corpus of early Christian correspondence which gives us no indication that the divine Christ these writers look to for salvation is to be identified with the man Jesus of Nazareth whom the Gospels place in the early 1 st century—or, indeed, with any man in their recent past.
.

• I get Doherty's point, but there's also the somewhat contradictory points that
  
  • the Pauline texts are aspirational, theological texts (aspirational for communities to take up a new theology: a new spiritualism)
  • these texts also do fail to provide accounts of a Jesus of Nazareth one would expect from someone is says he met Jesus' disciples.
  In regards to the second point: if we, the modern-day seekers of historical meaning, knew accounts like the Gospel attributed to Mark (and perhaps a saying gospel like D.Thomas) were first - not the Pauline epistles - and were actual accounts of by actual disciples, say Peter, John and James (+/- others), I doubt anyone would be having these discussions or disputing the historicity of Jesus.

To me, assuming the mythicist theory is correct, it is odd that so many ahistoricist texts were valued by historicists.1

There are quite a few more Second Century texts that, according to Doherty, were also the products of ahistoricist Christians.2

As Doherty writes:

As one can see by this survey, if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus2 which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers.3 (page 485)

1. Which historicists? When? in the 2nd Century?
2. I'm not sure Church Fathers would have been interested in stories about a basic human dude who was simply said to have been deified.
3. I'm not sure there were 1st century epistle writers. or, if there were, anyone had attempted to discern what they might have written then. I think what we have are largely 2nd century epistles in primary writing and/or through a significant amount of secondary editing.

[GakuseiDon]

I'm not sure Church Fathers would have been interested in stories about a basic human dude who was simply said to have been deified.

My list was more directed towards Secret Alias's point about Church Fathers being seemingly unaware of ahistoricists. The mystery is deeper than that: they were seemingly unaware of the mythicists but apparently were familiar with their texts and actually referenced them in a positive way.

[MrMacSon]

The eastern Mediterranean in the second century AD/CE could well have been the most theologically and philosophically diverse and theologically fluid place ever in the history of humanity: Roman 'religions' - in fact religio was only developing as a concept, according to Jörg Rüpke - probably still Greek 'religions', the Jewish Diaspora, Philo, the various texts lumped under the label 'Gnostics'; an influx of Egyptian and Eastern 'religions' (and being modified, such as the development of the Roman Mithras); the various cults of Antinous rapidly established by Hadrian in the early 130s AD/CE; as well as the writings of Plato, Homer, Cicero, Seneca, Josephus, the Odes, etc., etc., ...

eta: ... it's little wonder there were people devouring and re-forming ( thus reforming) new ideas

[Paul the Uncertain]

First, I agree with the OP that there is a problem to ponder. These are disputatious people, and yet there are no reports of early disputes involving any group besides the Simonians who asserted that Jesus (in whatever form) didn't cause real eyewitnesses at least to believe that they had perceived Jesus doing earthly deeds on earth.

How urgent a problem is that? Based on Paul, both sides would agree that Jesus is currently a celestial being and that he had been to some extent accessible to the leaders of the original apostolic generation in that celestial form. Moreover, both sides would agree that much had been written about Jesus centuries before that generation.

So long as the two sides could agree that what Jesus was said to have taught was legislative for their church, then what is at stake in whether Jesus taught on earth, or only from heaven supplemented with reliable Jewish scriptural information about him?

In the specific Carrier-Doherty scenario, in order for there to have been a dispute, the Gospel story would need to have been so unacceptable to believers in an "eternally celestial" Jesus that they would have resisted its acceptance in some organized fashion.

It's clear why Simonians might have resisted the Gospel. They reportedly held an affirmative contrary theory of the events in question, and Gospels-Acts marginalized the role of their hero-founder figures, Simon and Helen, in those events.

But why would a fan of an eternally celestial Jesus resist? So what if an entertaining allegory got constructed around what had always largely been somebody else's visions anyway?

IRL, David Mamet asked his rabbi whether the Tanakh was true, and the rabbi said that the Tanakh wasn't what happened, but rather what always happened. The very same could be said of Glengarry Glen Ross. Mamet accepted his rabbi's view with joy. Why wouldn't he?

Why couldn't Mark, who seems to have had much else in common with David Mamet, have been a believer in an eternally celestial Jesus when he sat down to compose his story about a Jesus who had lived on earth? And if the author were OK with that, then why would other people who agreed with the author necessarily have had enough of a problem with it to organize themselves into a persistent resistance?

The OP's concern is justified, and not the easiest objection to answer decisively, but I don't see a knock-out punch in it.

[GakuseiDon]

The OP's concern is justified, and not the easiest objection to answer decisively, but I don't see a knock-out punch in it.

I don't think the OP is framing it as a "knock-out punch". Even should (say) Dr Carrier's mythicist theory win the day, it is still a mystery that would be worth examining. Under historicity theories, the lack of mention of Gospel Jesus details in the epistles and Second Century apologists could be considered as big a mystery.

It's not like studies on the origin of Christianity would come to a stop if ahistoricity wins the day. It may well offer a shot in the arm for further studies.