About minimal mythicism...

[Giuseppe]

The minimal mythicist theory assumes:
1) a mythological deity called 'Jesus', before
2) an allegorical story taken as 'remembered history' about this mythological 'Jesus', after.

My question: is the point 1 very necessary as it is?
Once you prove the existence of the pattern of a dying-and-rising god (in a celestial or terrestrial realm), why do you find necessary also to see the evidence of a mythical (not still historicized) Jesus cult?

A more simple and minimal mythicist theory would assume only that some Jews created, after 70 CE, ex novo a 'historical Jesus' by writing the first gospel, so to have from the beginning a Jewish Version of a mediterranean god complete of a biography on Terra firma, disciples, enemies, etc.

[Clive]

Two separate stories got merged in "Jesus Christ"?

Paul and his celestial christ?

Mark and his favoured son of god "well pleased"?

[GakuseiDon]

The minimal mythicist theory assumes:
1) a mythological deity called 'Jesus', before
2) an allegorical story taken as 'remembered history' about this mythological 'Jesus', after.

My question: is the point 1 very necessary as it is?
Once you prove the existence of the pattern of a dying-and-rising god (in a celestial or terrestrial realm), why do you find necessary also to see the evidence of a mythical (not still historicized) Jesus cult?

I think it depends on whose minimal mythicist theory you are talking about. Carrier defines his on page 53 of OHJ:

• 1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
  2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
  3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
  4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
  5. Subsequent communities of worshippers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

[Giuseppe]

Precisely. I doubt that the points 1, 2, 3 are really necessary, as already implicit in Hellenism.

[outhouse]

A more simple and minimal mythicist theory would assume only that some Jews created, after 70 CE, ex novo a 'historical Jesus' by writing the first gospel, so to have from the beginning a Jewish Version of a mediterranean god complete of a biography on Terra firma, disciples, enemies, etc.

Simple?


First I don't see Israelites creating anything here.

Second, you completely ignore the Hellenistic divorce from Judaism, by Hellenist who had been worshipping Judaism lite for centuries. Hellenism permeated Judaism at different extents, and Judaism permeated into Hellenism who found importance of one god instead of worshipping the Emperor a corrupt politician as "son of god"


Third, there is no reason to make a Hellenistic deity into a Galilean oppressed Jew peasant. It does not reflect any other "typical" deity in Hellenism.


Forth, you don't crate a deity and say he was on the largest stage in PERSON in front of half a million people a few decades earlier.


Fifth, no one, not even the groups enemies stated it didn't happen as written.

[outhouse]

I think it depends on whose minimal mythicist theory you are talking about. Carrier defines his on page 53 of OHJ:

Fodder in my opinion.

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Which of course is false. No other deity was placed on earth as being witnessed as a human born to a woman who was raised as a human, and murdered like a human, and legends written in the same generation of living witnesses.

Instead what we see is the origin of Christianity surrounded around the martyrdom of a Galilean peasant, crucified in front of half a million people.

2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).

Which purposely ignores all the text stating he taught Galilean Judaism as he learned from John after taking over Johns movement after Johns death, taking the baptism rituals on the road to avoid making Johns mistake of staying in one spot.

3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

Nonsense, utter horse crap. Its why few with credibility take him seriously. Way to far out in the imaginative "realm".

Paul makes it quite clear, as do the gospels of his earthly realm.

John was earthly and has historicity and Jesus was placed with him.

4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

Finding similarities to mythology in the geographic location and time period is to be expected in full 100%.

But his biggest laughable error that he should be stripped of any credibility is this imaginative unsubstantiated sacred community. We see the movement with no center what so ever. We see wide spread diversity from the start with many definitions and mythological views from all man to all god.


I think he should end up on ancient aliens where he could actually make more money for not telling the whole truth. I find the man a genius, but intellect is useless if the compass is broken.

5. Subsequent communities of worshippers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical

Invented sacred story? More horse crap.

That's funny that 10,000 other scholars are all in agreement, even most atheist scholars that this story was not invented.


What "credible" academia actually see's is rhetorical prose describing the deification of a man due to his martyrdom, using typical mythology in a time when Hellenism had adopted Judaism but many would not fully convert. With the fall of the temple these Hellenistic Proselytes no longer wanted to be vilified by Romans for being part of a religion followed by those rebellious Jews.

Hellenistic Judaism had long wanted a divorce from cultural Israelite's, and many Hellenist never fully adopted many of their customs.

[Giuseppe]

would you say the same things under the condition that the gospel used by Marcion and marcionites (with no John at his incipit) was the first gospel and the unique primary source on Jesus ???

[outhouse]

would you say the same things under the condition that the gospel used by Marcion and marcionites (with no John at his incipit) was the first gospel and the unique primary source on Jesus ???

No it was not the first. Im in the "he edited everything" camp.

To me Marcion was a popular teacher of his own version of a wide and diverse movement.