How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

[Leucius Charinus]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... _jesus.htm
How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity - By R.G. Price - 11/23/2014

• Having written several pieces on the historicity of Jesus (Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion, The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory), I think it is of critical importance to not simply cast doubt on the historical existence of Jesus, but to actually put forward plausible explanations for the development of early Christian writings and how the widespread belief in a real life Jesus was established. This piece builds on the evidence laid out in my prior writings and ties everything together into a cohesive explanation for the origins of belief in a human Jesus and the development of early Christian history.
  
  I want to make something very clear: Not only do I think that "Jesus never existed", I think it's very possible, given the evidence, to build a solid case which proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Jesus did not exist. The primary pieces of evidence in my case against the existence of Jesus are in fact the Gospels themselves.
  
  After having studied this subject for years, I have moved away from the term "myth" to describe the origins of "Jesus", and now view the origins of belief in a real human Jesus to be a product of misunderstood fiction. I call this the Fictional Jesus Theory. What I will do first is provide a basic overview of how I think the belief in a real Jesus and the rise of Christianity occurred, then lay out the evidence supporting my Fictional Jesus Theory.
  
  • •Overview
    •Apocalyptic Origins of Christian Theology
    •Creation of the Markan Narrative
    •Development of the Other Gospels
    •The Author of Mark had Read the Letters of Paul
    •"Q" or a Lost Version of Mark?
    •Non-canonical Gospels
    •Summary of the Gospel Analysis
    •The Reception and Impact of the Gospels
    •All Knowledge of Jesus Came from the Gospels
    •Confusion of the Early Christian Scholars
    •The New Pantheon of Christian Heroes
    •Summary and Conclusion
  
  
  
  Concluding paragraph ...
  
  The interpretation of the Gospels by the original church fathers was simply a misunderstanding. It was, quite arguably, the single biggest and most important literary misunderstanding in the history of the world. It's a misunderstanding that completely changed the course of history and reshaped Western Civilization. Recognizing and understanding the literary allusions in the Gospel of Mark, however, leaves little doubt that the story was originally written as fiction and that its protagonist, Jesus, was a fictional character, who never actually existed.

[andrewbos]

I cannot move away from the historical Jesus because Q1 and the non-passion portion of Mark are fully compatible and yet the author of Mark could never have made up Q1 because he shows no understanding of its ideology whatsoever.

It is much more likely that the author of Mark used a copy of the edited Q-gospel as well as anecdotes about the life of Jesus to write his narrative gospel and later expanded this with the passion part of the gospel.
The passion myth he based on the christology of the Pauline letter started by probably Simon Magus and edited by his followers including Marcion and further edited by the proto-orthodox part of the church of which the author of Mark was a member.

[cienfuegos]

I cannot move away from the historical Jesus because Q1 and the non-passion portion of Mark are fully compatible and yet the author of Mark could never have made up Q1 because he shows no understanding of its ideology whatsoever.

It is much more likely that the author of Mark used a copy of the edited Q-gospel as well as anecdotes about the life of Jesus to write his narrative gospel and later expanded this with the passion part of the gospel.
The passion myth he based on the christology of the Pauline letter started by probably Simon Magus and edited by his followers including Marcion and further edited by the proto-orthodox part of the church of which the author of Mark was a member.

Price's view is not too far removed from this. He just believes 'Q' was originally part of gMark:

Based on my analysis of both the Gospel called Mark and Q, I don't believe that the Q material could possibly be independent from the Markan narrative. The Q material is clearly dependent upon the narrative from Mark, and was either part of an original longer version of Mark or was added later by another author to an expanded version of Mark, from which both the authors of the Gospels called Matthew and Luke copied.

I believe that the most likely explanation, which fits with my analysis of the Q material, is that what scholars call "Q" is really an expanded version of Mark, that had additional material added to it by another author. Furthermore, there is evidence which suggests that indeed there was some longer version of Mark which has been lost. This longer version of Mark is known as "Secret Mark" and was mentioned in a letter by Clement of Alexandria, who lived during the 2nd century.

[Clive]

What happened to the proposal that HJ is an enlightenment invention, and that Christianity has never and still does not believe in this heretical concept, asserting that the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, died and after three days risen again, is fully god fully man.

[Sheshbazzar]

'

Mark 1:1-2

1.Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

"The Beginning of the gospel of Ἰησοῦ Christ, the Son of THEOS ", _(the fiction)_

2 .Ὡς γέγραπται

As it is written;" (Mk 1:1 & 2)

The real BEGINNING of the fictional tale of 'Jesus' christus of Nazareth;

LXX Num 13:16.

16. Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν ('Jesus')

16. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Ἰησοῦν ('Jesus').

LXX Ex 33:11

11. καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ ὡς εἴ τις λαλήσει πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φίλον καὶ ἀπελύετο εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν ὁ δὲ θεράπων Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus') υἱὸς Ναυη νέος οὐκ ἐξεπορεύετο ἐκ τῆς σκηνῆς

11. 'And "KURIOS" spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp:
but his servant Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus'), the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle'.

LXX Deut 18:15

15. προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ὡς ἐμὲ ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε

15. "KURIOS" o 'Theos will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of your brethren, like unto me; unto him you shall hearken;

LXX Deut 18:18-19
18. προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν ὥσπερ σὲ καὶ δώσω τὸ ῥῆμά μου ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ λαλήσει αὐτοῖς καθότι ἂν ἐντείλωμαι αὐτῷ

18. "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19. καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ

19. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it (extract it) of him.
(see 'require' Gen 9:5, 42:22, Deut 23:21.)

The underlying Hebrew phraseology may be interpreted as either the one doing the sin/wrong will bear the penalty, OR _that prophesied one that speaks 'in His name' will have to answer for it, and/or personally pay the penalty for the sin/wrongs of the sinner(s).
Which leads us into the Hebrew religious concept of the 'go'al', a person that 'pays the price' required to 'redeem' another.

This is the genesis of 'Jesus' Ἰησοῦ, (also spelled Ἰησοῦς) and of the (latter) 'christ-ian' "As it is written" interpretation/application.
Their Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus') to them being seen as the SOLE self-blood sacrificing 'go'al'/ Redeemer of all men.

While the text of Deut 18:18-19 refers directly to the Prophet at hand " Ἰησοῦς , the son of Nun", it was long conceived among Hellenistic LXX Bible scholars that this " Ἰησοῦς" ('Joshua' <sic> 'Jesus') was only a 'TYPE' and a forerunner of that " Ἰησοῦς the Χριστός >"Christus" that was to come.

The telling detail of the NT is that The Annunciation made to the Hebrew/Jewish nation was considered (by the writers) to require no explanation of any of the foreign Greek terminology being employed.
" Ἰησοῦς" <sic> 'Jesus' the Χριστός >"Christus" Redeemer had been an integral part of Hellenistic Judaic thought and teaching all the way back to the initial production of the Septuagint (LXX) text circa 200 BCE !
(The afterthought of providing a Hebrew to Greek translation of the foreign sourced Greek term 'christos' does not arrive until as late as the composition of 'The Gospel According to John' (Jn 1:41 & 4:25)

The Hellenistic Greek speaking gospel writers, fully indoctrinated into the Greek LXX terminology, expected everyone of that time and place (including native Aramaic and Hebrew speakers) to already be familiar with their Greek 'EaSUS 'Christus', an expectation that could not be so lightly taken for granted, UNLESS their 'EaSUS as 'Christos' terminology and doctrine had been preached and expounded upon for a long period preceding the Annunciation.

The historical explanation requires no actual life of any flesh and blood human 'Jesus' as its Beginning. Everything written about the infamous 1st century CE 'Jesus' is composed of fiction built on top of the fictions of the Tanakh, as corrupted into Greek.


Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

[MrMacSon]

The underlying Hebrew phraseology may be interpreted as either the one doing the sin/wrong will bear the penalty, OR _that prophesied one that speaks 'in His name' will have to answer for it, and/or personally pay the penalty for the sin/wrongs of the sinner(s).

Which leads us into the Hebrew religious concept of the 'go'al', a person that 'pays the price' required to 'redeem' another.

This is the genesis of 'Jesus' Ἰησοῦ, (also spelled Ἰησοῦς) and of the (latter) 'christ-ian' "As it is written" interpretation/application.

Their Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus') to them being seen as the SOLE self-blood sacrificing 'go'al'/ Redeemer of all men.

Is "the Hebrew religious concept of the 'go'al', a person that 'pays the price' required to 'redeem' another" a long-standing concept?

ie. a long-standing one BC/BCE? and one that has persisted until today?

While the text of Deut 18:18-19 refers directly to the Prophet at hand " Ἰησοῦς , the son of Nun", it was long conceived among Hellenistic LXX Bible scholars that this " Ἰησοῦς" ('Joshua' <sic> 'Jesus') was only a 'TYPE' and a forerunner of that " Ἰησοῦς the Χριστός >"Christus" that was to come.

The telling detail of the NT is that The Annunciation made to the Hebrew/Jewish nation was considered (by the writers) to require no explanation of any of the foreign Greek terminology being employed.

" Ἰησοῦς " <sic> 'Jesus' the Χριστός >"Christus" Redeemer had been an integral part of Hellenistic Judaic thought and teaching all the way back to the initial production of the Septuagint (LXX) text circa 200 BCE !

(The afterthought of providing a Hebrew to Greek translation of the foreign sourced Greek term 'christos' does not arrive until as late as the composition of 'The Gospel According to John' (Jn 1:41 & 4:25)

The Hellenistic Greek speaking gospel writers, fully indoctrinated into the Greek LXX terminology, expected everyone of that time and place (including native Aramaic and Hebrew speakers) to already be familiar with their Greek 'EaSUS 'Christus', an expectation that could not be so lightly taken for granted, UNLESS their 'EaSUS as 'Christos' terminology and doctrine had been preached and expounded upon for a long period preceding the Annunciation.

I'm intrigued by John 7:41 -

John 7

• 40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
  
  41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
  
  Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”
  
  43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus

.

The historical explanation requires no actual life of any flesh and blood human 'Jesus' as its Beginning. Everything written about the infamous 1st century CE 'Jesus' is composed of fiction built on top of the fictions of the Tanakh, as corrupted into Greek.

[Leucius Charinus]

'

Mark 1:1-2

1.Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

"The Beginning of the gospel of Ἰησοῦ Christ, the Son of THEOS ", _(the fiction)_

2 .Ὡς γέγραπται

As it is written;" (Mk 1:1 & 2)

The real BEGINNING of the fictional tale of 'Jesus' christus of Nazareth;

LXX Num 13:16.

16. Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν ('Jesus')

16. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Ἰησοῦν ('Jesus').

LXX Ex 33:11

11. καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ ὡς εἴ τις λαλήσει πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φίλον καὶ ἀπελύετο εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν ὁ δὲ θεράπων Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus') υἱὸς Ναυη νέος οὐκ ἐξεπορεύετο ἐκ τῆς σκηνῆς

11. 'And "KURIOS" spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp:
but his servant Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus'), the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle'.

LXX Deut 18:15

15. προφήτην ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου ὡς ἐμὲ ἀναστήσει σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε

15. "KURIOS" o 'Theos will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of your brethren, like unto me; unto him you shall hearken;

LXX Deut 18:18-19
18. προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν ὥσπερ σὲ καὶ δώσω τὸ ῥῆμά μου ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ λαλήσει αὐτοῖς καθότι ἂν ἐντείλωμαι αὐτῷ

18. "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19. καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ

19. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it (extract it) of him.
(see 'require' Gen 9:5, 42:22, Deut 23:21.)

The underlying Hebrew phraseology may be interpreted as either the one doing the sin/wrong will bear the penalty, OR _that prophesied one that speaks 'in His name' will have to answer for it, and/or personally pay the penalty for the sin/wrongs of the sinner(s).
Which leads us into the Hebrew religious concept of the 'go'al', a person that 'pays the price' required to 'redeem' another.

This is the genesis of 'Jesus' Ἰησοῦ, (also spelled Ἰησοῦς) and of the (latter) 'christ-ian' "As it is written" interpretation/application.
Their Ἰησοῦς ('Jesus') to them being seen as the SOLE self-blood sacrificing 'go'al'/ Redeemer of all men.

While the text of Deut 18:18-19 refers directly to the Prophet at hand " Ἰησοῦς , the son of Nun", it was long conceived among Hellenistic LXX Bible scholars that this " Ἰησοῦς" ('Joshua' <sic> 'Jesus') was only a 'TYPE' and a forerunner of that " Ἰησοῦς the Χριστός >"Christus" that was to come.

The telling detail of the NT is that The Annunciation made to the Hebrew/Jewish nation was considered (by the writers) to require no explanation of any of the foreign Greek terminology being employed.
" Ἰησοῦς" <sic> 'Jesus' the Χριστός >"Christus" Redeemer had been an integral part of Hellenistic Judaic thought and teaching all the way back to the initial production of the Septuagint (LXX) text circa 200 BCE !
(The afterthought of providing a Hebrew to Greek translation of the foreign sourced Greek term 'christos' does not arrive until as late as the composition of 'The Gospel According to John' (Jn 1:41 & 4:25)

The Hellenistic Greek speaking gospel writers, fully indoctrinated into the Greek LXX terminology, expected everyone of that time and place (including native Aramaic and Hebrew speakers) to already be familiar with their Greek 'EaSUS 'Christus', an expectation that could not be so lightly taken for granted, UNLESS their 'EaSUS as 'Christos' terminology and doctrine had been preached and expounded upon for a long period preceding the Annunciation.

The historical explanation requires no actual life of any flesh and blood human 'Jesus' as its Beginning. Everything written about the infamous 1st century CE 'Jesus' is composed of fiction built on top of the fictions of the Tanakh, as corrupted into Greek.


Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

Hi Sheshbazzar!

As far as I am concerned you have reduced Father Tom Brodie's recent book to a single small post.

I need to read this again another dozen times. Thanks man.

Be well my friend. Only another two short weeks and you will see the sun returning to your northern terrestrial hemisphere.

Here in the south we will see it starting to return to you.

Such is the wonderful fabric of life.

• "A day will come at last when I
  Shall take the hidden paths that run
  West of the Moon, East of the Sun."
  
  - JRR Tolkien (from 'The Hobbit')

LC

[Sheshbazzar]

Is "the Hebrew religious concept of the 'go'al', a person that 'pays the price' required to 'redeem' another" a long-standing concept?

ie. a long-standing one BC/BCE? and one that has persisted until today?

The pattern of redemption is laid down in the Law;

47. Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family,
48. after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him;
49. or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him;
or if he is able he may redeem himself.

Now a man (person) may 'sell himself' into 'sin', and from the Scriptural point of view, ALL men have done so, all are accounted as sinners;

2. YHWH looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek Elohim.
3. They are ALL gone aside, they are ALL together become filthy: there is NONE that doeth good, NO, NOT ONE. (Psalm 14:2-3)

We ALL, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and YHWH has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:6) (see Rom 7:14 'sold')

No mere man can in an manner redeem either himself or any other person from 'sin' and the 'curse'(s) of The Law(s);
First a reminder of the words of that curse;

"‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm the words of this Torah to DO them.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ (Deut 27:26)

NO exceptions, NO 'cherry picking'. ALL to be confirmed, and ALL to be observed and kept (27:1), by those subject to that Covenant, that nation of the Torah called Israel.

Only ONE 'Redeemer' for sin and error;

25. “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. (IsaYah 43:25)

6. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me
I am YHWH, and there is none else. (IsaYah 45:6)

You shall know that I, YHWH, am your Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (IsaYah 60:16)

HOWEVER. No male, who is not circumcised may eat of the Passover (Exodus 12:43-45) The gentile that is not circumcised in his foreskin, and does not eat of the Passover, according to all of its ordinances, remains exempt from obligations to obey the letter of the Laws, and by the exclusion, also exempted from the curses which are of that Law.
By the Law, Gentile believers in the Elohim of Israel have always been exempted from obligation to live according to, or any requirements to 'DO' all of these Commandments, Statutes, and Laws; ...(unless they willfully become 'Jews', and that is something that is very much discouraged and hindered by traditional Orthodox Judaism.)

"When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;"

In other words, the exercise of good and mutually approved ethics is the acceptable 'law' of all just gentiles.
The written Law (Torah) of the Jews, was given by Jews, to Jews, for Jews. Never has there ever been any obligation by the 'Laws of Moses', for Gentile believers to ever live according to the detailed Laws given the Jews. Else the 'nations' so doing would cease to be the nations.


Sheshbazzar

[Clive]

So Christianity and Islam are different answers to the question, what must the gentile do to be saved? Islam's answer is be Jewish, Christianities' a fascinating mix.

[andrewbos]

Price's view is not too far removed from this. He just believes 'Q' was originally part of gMark:

Even if it was part of gMark, that still means you have to explain why the tantric-mystic Jesus of Q1 and non-passion Mark was absorbed by another type of (christian) Jesus that is totally at odds with the original.
You can only recognize this if you fully understand the large difference between the ideology of Q1 and that of the christian gospels.
If Q1 and the non-passion part of Mark were made up by christians themselves, you have to explain why they show no signs at all of understanding them or where they got them from.
If you cannot explain this, you have to accept that there had been an earlier mission with a tantric-mystic (historical) Jesus.