Evidence Christianity started as mythicist

[Irish1975]

to Irish1975,

"The New Testament;
The Odes of Solomon;
The Gospel of Thomas;
The Ascension of Isaiah;
The Didache;
1 Clement."

Really, did you check the New Testament lately? And what about 1 Clement (check 31:4), and gThomas (check 15, 52, 79, 99)?

Cordially, Bernard

If those sayings in gThomas count as evidence for you of Jesus' historicity, it's clear that we have incompatible notions of what the question is or what would count as evidence.

One might as well say that Proverbs 1:20-33 counts as evidence of a historical woman named "Wisdom." Has a voice, hangs out on street corners, argues with fools, etc. Must have been a real human being.

FWIW, I wasn't claiming that mythicism is a slam dunk. It's obvious that the NT is framed so as to convince the reader that Jesus really lived and died in Palestine. But in the words of Blake,

Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white.

[MrMacSon]

Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who,

"from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT)

= a theological trope

"come of a woman, come under law" (Gal 4:4 YLT)

= necessary to fulfill the law: ie. a theological necessity

as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal 3:16), Jesse (Rom 15:12), & of David (Rom 1:3)

= the same theological trope as above

"found in appearance as a man" (Php 2:8)

It was common to see and portray celestial beings such as angels as men. See the book of Zechariah.

"in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3)

"in the likeness of" does not mean actually flesh

"the one man, Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:15)

asserting he was a man does not mean he was.

(who had brothers (1Co 9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal 1:19))

brothers in arms; in Christ - brethren.

Gal 1:19 = 'the brother of the Lord' ie. it does not specify brother of a particular person

"humbled himself" (Php 2:8) in "poverty" (2Co 8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8)

Throwing disparate passages from different books of the bible isn't evidence Bernard, it's midrashim: it's what Paul and Mark were doing. To create an interesting narrative.

and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co 13:4) in "Zion" (Rom 9:31-33 & Rom 11:26-27).

More theology. Weak human Jesus = weak human Israel, after the first Roman-Jewish War (& perhaps even after the 2nd).

As for Hebrews: from http://historical-jesus.info/40.html:

"For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Heb 7:14

A theological trope, as is Hebrews 2:14-17 -

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature,
that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.
For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect,
so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God,
to make expiation for the sins of the people."

That

.
"he had to be made like his brethren in every respect,
so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God,
to make expiation for the sins of the people"
.

says it all.

As does

he himself likewise partook of the same nature,
that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil

partook = portrayed as.

More midrashim

.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

1) All material from pre-Gospel writings (Epistles of Paul, James, Jude, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 Clement) provide no description of Jesus that is not derived from the Jewish scriptures' or revelation.

I certainly would not put Jude,1 Peter and 1 Clement as pre gospel. And Christian authors probably used the LXX to make Jesus fulfilling pieces of the OT. And what they used from the OT about Jesus might be characteristic (similar to part of Jesus' life, such as 1 Clement 16:10) or not.

(Note that describing Jesus as "born of a woman" or having "taken the form of flesh" is not a description of a real person, and all such descriptions are based in scripture is not a description of a real person, and all such descriptions are based in scripture)

"born of (a) woman" means fully human. It is used as such in Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4 and (born of women) Mt 11:11, Lk 7:28.
"son of man" is used 106 times in the OT to indicate a fully human being (Da 8:!7 might be an exception but it is "like a son of man".
In gMark, most occurrences of "son of man" refer to an earthly Jesus who later becomes an heavenly son of man.
"taken the form of flesh" is descriptive for a incarnated as human of a heavenly deity. Paul had Jesus pre-existent in heaven then becoming fully human on earth. I wonder where did you see the phrase in the OT?

2) All sayings attributed to Jesus in pre-Gospel material are derived from scripture or revelation, i.e. "The Lord said..." This is consistent with centuries of Jewish writings about unhistorical beings, such as God himself, angels, etc.
3) We have pre-Gospel writings from between 8 and 14 different people, depending on how we count it and what is determined to be forged and by whom. That is 8 to 14 different people, none of which provide any information about Jesus that is not derived from scripture or revelation.

Obviously you date the gospels very late. My research put them in the 1st century with gMark the earliest in 70-71 AD.

If Jesus were a real person, and seen as the originator of the teachings of this group

My study shows Jesus was not the originator of the teachings of this group. The real Jesus was really very very minimal:
Consider my historical Jesus in a few words: "How an accidental healer, who was also a poor uneducated Jew, got to be crucified as "king of the Jews"." at http://historical-jesus.info/46.html

I am tired. I'll stop here for the day.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

"How an accidental healer, who was also a poor uneducated Jew, got to be crucified as "king of the Jews"."

Really, the Gospel item "king of Jews" (titulus crucis) was derived from Philo's story about Pilate in Embassy to Gaius:

[the shields] had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there

It cannot be a coincidence that what disturbed the Jews, both in Philo and in GMark, was an inscription on a shield:

• the inscription 'Pilate' and 'Tiberius' on the shields placed in the Temple by Pilate, in Philo

• the inscription 'King of Jews' on the titulus crucis placed on the cross by Pilate, in GMark

Which means that the name 'Pilate' was derived by 'Mark' (author) from Philo's book Embassy to Gaius.

[Giuseppe]

Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 299:

Πιλᾶτος ἦν τῶν ὑπάρχων ἐπίτροπος ἀποδεδειγμένος τῆς Ἰουδαίας· οὗτος οὐκ ἐπὶ τιμῇ Τιβερίου μᾶλλον ἢ ἕνεκα τοῦ λυπῆσαι τὸ πλῆθος ἀνατίθησιν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἱερόπολιν Ἡρῴδου βασιλείοις ἐπιχρύσους ἀσπίδας μήτε μορφὴν ἐχούσας μήτε ἄλλο τι τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων, ἔξω τινὸς ἐπιγραφῆς ἀναγκαίας, ἣ δύο ταῦτα ἐμήνυε, τόν τε ἀναθέντα καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ ἡ ἀνάθεσις.

Mark 15:26:

καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ.

IT CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE!!!

[rgprice]

@Giuseppe
I agree here. Mark used Philo, I have no doubt. It actually goes back into a lot more material than just this as well. There is still a question of why Pilate. I believe, at this point at least, this is because Mark was also using a copy of Ur-Acts, a lost Acts of Paul, which was the text also used by the writer of 2nd Acts. This Lost Acts of Paul clearly stated that Paul's ministry took place during the procuratorships of Festus and Felix. Appropriately, Mark needed to place his story prior to this. GMark was written as a prequal to Ur-Acts.

A question can certainly be raised as to why Mark chose Pilate over, for example, Fadus. Josephus also records some detail about Fadus that would indicate Fadus had some troubles with Jewish relations as well. But I suspect that the reason Mark chose Pilate was because he fell before Felix and because he found material he wanted to work from in Philo, particularly Philo's story of the conflict with Caligula, which I believe is the material used for the reference to the abominating sacrilege. The Philo material basically runs form Mark 13 through Mark 15. The puzzling thing is why Mark used the statue of Caligula as the abominating sacrilege given that it was never actually put in the temple. I'm still thinking about this issue.

@Barnard

I certainly would not put Jude,1 Peter and 1 Clement as pre gospel.

I'll put it this way, those writers didn't know the Gospel story of Jesus.

"born of (a) woman" means fully human. It is used as such in Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4 and (born of women) Mt 11:11, Lk 7:28.
"son of man" is used 106 times in the OT to indicate a fully human being (Da 8:!7 might be an exception but it is "like a son of man".

Of course that's what those things mean, but the OT is filled with stories about people "born of a woman" who are "sons of men" that never existed too. I'm not disputing that Pauline theology states that Jesus "became flesh". But a story about someone "becoming flesh" does not a real person make.

Enoch was a "son of man", that doesn't make Enoch real. And Paul says explicitly that his comment on Jesus being "born of a woman" is an allegory.

Obviously you date the gospels very late.

Not necessarily. I'd like to be able to date them as early as possible. I wish I could date Mark to 70 CE. But the evidence just goes against it. Early dating of the Gospel of Mark poses no challenge at all for the mythicist position, in fact in helps it as far as I'm concerned. I have no particular problem with Mark being dated to the 70s CE, I just don't see evidence that anyone knew of the Markan story until the 2nd century, with the possible exception of the Testimonium Tacitus, which I think is questionable. But other than the TT I see no evidence that anyone knew of the Gospel Jesus in the first century.

The real Jesus was really very very minimal:
Consider my historical Jesus in a few words: "How an accidental healer, who was also a poor uneducated Jew, got to be crucified as "king of the Jews"." at http://historical-jesus.info/46.html

The healings, etc. of Jesus are clearly derived from scripture. The idea that some real person performing miracles or even fooling people into believing such is the root of Jesus worship is entirely off the table. Nothing in the pre-Gospel literature says anything about this, and such attributes are clearly derived from scripture. Descriptions of such figures that match exactly to the description of the Gospel Jesus are even found at Qumran. They are peshers on Isaiah and Habakkuk, etc. In fact, much of the Gospel Jesus is described in the Testament of Levi and Redemption and Resurrection from Qumran. It even appears that the writer of Matthew knew the Qumranic Redemption and Resurrection, from which he appears to quote.

There is no precedent for Jews deifying a real person in the way Jesus is deified in the earliest writings about him. Yet we have multiple examples of Jews deriving figures exactly resembling the Pauline Jesus from scripture: Enoch, Melchezedeck, Michael, to say the least. Those are all models that exactly mirror Pauline Jesus worship of a divine being derived from scripture. There is no prior model for the Jewish worship of an illiterate homeless preacher.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

IT CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE!!!

Giuseppe, something doesn't come true just because you shout it.

[perseusomega9]

IT CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE!!!

Giuseppe, something doesn't come true just because you shout it.

[davidmartin]

but Josephus reports a ton of messianic, prophetic, rebellious or plain old criminal figures meeting sticky ends
any of these or one like them could easily have been the historical Jesus or the basis at least for the gospel Jesus
yet the mythicist position is to say the gospel Jesus is a complete fabrication without any historical basis
that would be ok if it solved all the problems but it doesn't, because the earlier Pauline writings conflict with the gospel Jesus which is supposed to be later. it's poor myth making if the myth you make struggles to agree with the what you've already said.
if i was a mythicist i could think of ways around that i'm sure but it's still a problem
on the other hand if the earlier writings just ignored the gospel Jesus because they took a previous gospel and changed it to edit his earthly life out then it could make sense
it's hard to take a mythicist position seriously that relies on authors who even in their own writings were constantly being forced to defend themselves as real apostles, defend against whom? maybe the followers of the gospel Jesus

[rgprice]

@davidmartin

What defending are you talking about? Paul defending himself? There's no doubt there was a body of teachings. It appears that the church Paul is addressing had existed for quite some time. But Paul is also introducing revelations of Jesus to existing churches. In other words, there was some existing collection of congregations throughout Asia Minor and Palestine. They already had an association with a leading Jerusalem congregation. This matches to what we know about the so-called God-fearers, Gentiles who associated with Jews, read the Torah, attended synagogue, and sent payments to the Temple. So, this congregation of Jews and Gentile that held to some common liturgy existed long before Paul, AND existed before the introduction of a teaching about the revelation of Jesus Christ (or rather of the Anointed Joshua).

Within this existing group, some prophet proclaimed a vision of a heavenly Anointed Joshua. Paul is telling the members of the congregation about this new revelation. The new revelation is taken as a sign of the End Times. This appears to correlate with the death of King Agrippa, which was seen as a crushing blow because it put an end to hope that Judea was returning to Jewish rule. So, King Agrippa dies, and someone says, "I've had a vision of Joshua, he's redeemed us of our sins, then end is neigh!"

There were issues with false prophets and false teachers throughout. We find talk about false leaders, etc. throughout Jewish writing from pretty much every period of time.

The issue is that prior to the Gospels there isn't a single writing that describes Jesus as anything other than a sacrificial offering and divine mediator. Every single attribute of Jesus is derived from scripture. Even in the Gospels, it turns out, every single attribute of Jesus is derived from scripture.

There literally isn't a single anecdote about Jesus that doesn't appears to be based on either the life of Paul or on a scripture. The Gospels are entirely symbolic stories. It's true that it is theoretically possible that Jesus could be based on a person. There were apparently many people going around spouting prophetic nonsense. Jesus could have been such a person. But nothing written about him ties to anything like that.

Jesus is a divine sacrifice that rose from the dead. That's not real. If Paul described Jesus as a teacher it would be a totally different story, but the only attributes any pre-Gospel writing ever assigns to Jesus are entirely unreal things. It isn't until the Gospels that Jesus appears real.

I'll put it this way, if not for the Gospels we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Assuming that knowledge of Jesus would even exist without the Gospel today, no one would be arguing that Jesus was a real person based purely on the non-Gospel writings.

So the Gospels are really the only thing that ever made anyone think Jesus was a real person to begin with. But we can see that the Gospels don't trace back to any information about a real person. They trace back only to scriptures and Paul.