The Best Argument Against Nihilistic Mythicism

[stephan happy huller]

Our earliest glimmer of Christianity seems to infer that Paul struggled against a group of "Jewish Christians" (however that is defined). Let's take away their claim to have been witnesses to Jesus (pseudo-Clementines) and retain the criticism that Paul (Simon) only knew Jesus through visions and revelations. You still have the bitter struggle between two camps of Jesus followers not only over observance of the law but the (proto)Marcionite debate over what was genuine in the description of Jesus's words and deeds in the gospel.

How is it possible that Christianity began existence as a fight over legitimacy between two groups - one Pauline the other "Jewish Christian" and two almost identical historical narratives- if that narrative was completely made up out of the imagination of one individual? What on earth were they fighting over?

if Paul wrote the gospel completely out of his own imagination (the most plausible mythicist scenario taking the Marcionite claims at face value) why on earth did the "Jewish Christians" think they could correct his invention? On what grounds?

if as I suspect Paul (Mark) "fixed" or developed a pre-existent Jewish Christian narrative he may have originally had a hand in writing (1 Corinthians 2) and this upset the Jewish Christians how does this disprove the idea that the original narrative went back to something historical in nature however loosely defined ?

[Peter Kirby]

This argument seems to start from a premise about the authenticity of the letters of Paul and thus their dating relative to other early Christian writings. (It also seems to start from a premise that "Paul wrote the gospel completely out of his own imagination" is implied by the non-historicity of Jesus.)

Nothing nihilistic about mythicism, stephan. We know lots about the early Christian writings and about Christian origins, but that Jesus existed is not part of our knowledge.

[Blood]

"Since we have only Paul's autobiographical remarks and not his opponents' accusations, which the consensus assumes provoked them, it is necessary to exercise restraint in asserting too confidently that specific charges actually existed, much less what they may have been. Even the existence of 'opponents' in the usual sense of the word is far from certain...what he says is determined by his rhetorical approach and not his opponents' reproaches. Proper recognition of the rhetorical elements in Paul's autobiographical remarks provides a further challenge to existing approaches, which characteristically reach historical conclusions before the question of literary function has been adequately addressed." -- G. Lyons, "Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding" (1985).

"The need to think twice in assessing the [Pauline] epistles is particularly well-ilustrated in Paul's autobiographical passages. These texts first appear thoroughly spontaneous and realistic, springing directly from his own personal experience, prime material for reconstructing history. But comparison with other ancient authors shows that Pauline autobiography is part of a larger literary practice and that the epistles deliberately use material which appears autobiographical for pedagogical purposes." - Thomas L. Brodie, "The Birthing of the New Testament" (2006)

"The account of Paul's confrontation with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14) is a further example of an apparently spontaneous text which turns out to be 'saturated with scriptural echoes, allusions, and concepts' (Ciampa 1998) ... the basic conclusion concerning Galatians is essentially the same as Romans: while engaging a specific audience, Paul is also engaging specific writings. It often appears difficult or even impossible to distinguish what is historical from what is scriptural...the overall impression, from Romans to Jude, is that as a whole the NT epistles involve deliberate reworkings of the older Scriptures. They are not just occasional documents. In a basic, constitutive way, their nature is scriptural -- literary, in the most serious sense." -- ibid.

[stephan happy huller]

Wait a minute. I am not saying that 'mythicism' is nihilistic. I am using nihilistic as an adjective to describe those who use the mythicist argument to annihilate the historical Jesus. One can argue for a historical Jesus narrative which develop 'mythically' (one of my problems with the abuse of the term mythicist; mythicism strictly speaking doesn't negate in itself the idea of a historical person beneath the myth).

I thought that I was being fairly generous with the evidence for Paul in favor of mythicism (i.e. negating the historical claims of the apostles as witnesses, working with the most favorable layer of evidence for Paul i.e. his identification with Simon in the Clementine literature). Even with all of that you still have the starting point of Christianity as an 'controversy' (a controversy traced by Celsus and his Jew into the second century). My point still stands. The orthodox tried to smooth over that 'argument' with Acts to a minor disagreement. Surely we can't just ignore Paul as he is the closest thing we have to a historical 'mythicist.' How do we take the arguments for a heavenly Jesus from the letters of Paul but somehow argue the letters were themselves fictions or ignore their evidence for reasons I can't quite understand.

As I said I was very, very generous with what evidence I was allowing. I don't think most 'historicist' scholars would go as far as I did to grant you 'historical mythicism' in the first century. I still think that will all of Paul's invention he was - as he says in 1 Corinthians - building upon something, something likely historical but which may not have involved a historical person named Jesus.

Nevertheless in this unexplored territory that 'mythicism' is it is too early too draw firm conclusions about anything. I am the furthest thing from being a 'historicist' but I can't help but feel that 'mythicist' has no right to go beyond 'maybe.' Some mythicists are driven by wholly emotional or polemic reasons to stretch what the evidence actually suggests - which again is 'maybe' the whole thing was made up.

[stephan happy huller]

Exactly Blood. It may be difficult to determine what was historical. But surely something was historical. There was a historical argument right? That argument took place at the very beginning of Christianity, right?

I can entertain very radical suppositions. I am not sure how much of Galatians 1 and 2 were actually part of the Marcionite recension. I am certain that not all of it was. But still, are we to suppose that the Catholics made up the argument between Peter and Paul? This is a mountainman-type argument - i.e. merely a way of getting rid of a difficulty (if anyone is suggesting it).

[Blood]

Exactly Blood. It may be difficult to determine what was historical. But surely something was historical. There was a historical argument right? That argument took place at the very beginning of Christianity, right?

I can entertain very radical suppositions. I am not sure how much of Galatians 1 and 2 were actually part of the Marcionite recension. I am certain that not all of it was. But still, are we to suppose that the Catholics made up the argument between Peter and Paul? This is a mountainman-type argument - i.e. merely a way of getting rid of a difficulty (if anyone is suggesting it).

"Surely something was historical." Well, that's how we get arguments from incredulity.

Never underestimate the religious imagination. Insisting that something in the gospels is historical is how we get the absurdity of things like, "Christians would never had made up Peter denying Jesus three times, that's too embarrassing, therefore it must be true in some respects."

[Blood]

But still, are we to suppose that the Catholics made up the argument between Peter and Paul?

This comes awfully close to, "I can't think of a reason why Catholics would make up an argument between Peter and Paul, therefore the letters are wholly authentic."

It's probably all second century retrojection, like Acts.

[Blood]

Nevertheless in this unexplored territory that 'mythicism' is it is too early too draw firm conclusions about anything. I am the furthest thing from being a 'historicist' but I can't help but feel that 'mythicist' has no right to go beyond 'maybe.' Some mythicists are driven by wholly emotional or polemic reasons to stretch what the evidence actually suggests - which again is 'maybe' the whole thing was made up.

Who's drawing firm conclusions? I'm certainly not.

Theologians were under no obligation to write about real people or real events.

[stephan happy huller]

A less sophisticated way of putting it is - supposing that everything is a lie. I don't see why we should do that. Let suppose that we have to have some justification for supposing someone was lying.

[Blood]

Well, let's see

The Pastorals are not written by Paul. So that's a lie.
Colossians was not written by Paul. Another lie.
Ephesians was not written by Paul. Another lie.
2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul. Another lie.
Hebrews was not written by Paul. Another lie.
Lacedemonians was not written by Paul. Another lie.
3 Corinthians was not written by Paul. Another lie.
1-2 Peter are not written by Peter. Another lie.
James was not written by James. Another lie.
1-3 John are not written by the apostle John. Another lie.
Jude is not written by Jude. Another lie.
The Gospel of John is not written by the apostle John. Another lie.
The Revelation of John is not written by the apostle John. Another lie.
The Gospel According to Mark is not written by Mark. Another Lie.
The Gospel According to Matthew is not written by Matthew. Another Lie.
The Gospel of Peter is not written by Peter. Another lie.
The Pseudo-Clementines are not written by Clement. Another lie.
The Gospel of Matthew was not originally in Hebrew. Papias lied.
Acts of the Apostles is just one huge mother-jumpin' lie.

Do I need to go on? To suggest, "Yeah, OK, all of those texts are false attributions and made up, but the seven 'earliest' epistles are absolutely real and authentic!" is just special pleading.

Of course, none of it is "lies," exactly. It's theological literature about idealized theological figures intended to teach lessons or solve some internal problem. Were the writers being deliberately deceptive? Perhaps, but it was done with the spirit of Plato's noble lie ethic.

Pretty much the same thing happened in the 20th century with superhero comic books. Are the authors of Superman "liars"? No, of course not. Nothing they wrote actually happened, but the purpose of the stories is to entertain and inform using an ideal type.

“Because of not knowing the truth about the distant past, we can make the false as like the true as possible, so as to make it useful.”
Plato, Republic 382d