On the Hurtado's answer to my question

[Giuseppe]

Prof Hurtado's answer to a my question:

“Josenrael” (PLEASE, names real names!): There was no systematic destruction of books by Christians. There were ad hoc attempts to suppress “heretical” texts, but only in/after the 4th century. Even so, we know of many of these writings, because “orthodox” writers (e.g., Irenaeus, etc.) mention them, and quote from them.
Among all the many versions of “heresies” that they catalogue, there is no “mythicist Jesus”. Clear??

This view assumes that our "orthodox" writers knew and talked about any possible heretical sect. And that therefore "Mythicist" Christians never existed because they didn't talk about them.

So according to Hurtado the Argument from Silence would be strong against the existence of "Mythicist" Christians, while the same Argument from Silence would be weak against a historical Jesus in Paul (even if the latter never referred to a historical Jesus in all the his epistles).

I can accept the idea that the "orthodox" writers were basically people later and ignorant about the True Origins (therefore ignoring the existence of a possible "mythicist" sect).

Surely more than I can accept the idea that Paul knew about a historical Jesus but he was totally silent about him (as a historical person).

[Ben C. Smith]

Prof Hurtado's answer to a my question:

“Josenrael” (PLEASE, names real names!): There was no systematic destruction of books by Christians. There were ad hoc attempts to suppress “heretical” texts, but only in/after the 4th century. Even so, we know of many of these writings, because “orthodox” writers (e.g., Irenaeus, etc.) mention them, and quote from them.
Among all the many versions of “heresies” that they catalogue, there is no “mythicist Jesus”. Clear??

This view assumes that our "orthodox" writers knew and talked about any possible heretical sect.

It certainly sounds like they tried to do exactly that.

[Giuseppe]

It certainly sounds like they tried to do exactly that.

True. I - or better, ''the mythicist who is in me'' - am both happy and disappointed by that answer by Hurtado. Since it is really (in my view) the only answer still legitimate by a historicist.

Afterall, why do I like the marcionites? Not surely for their being historicists, but uniquely for a sense of pure opposition to the proto-Catholic tradition (of which I consider the academic HJ gild the last residue in the post-modern age).

[Ben C. Smith]

It certainly sounds like they tried to do exactly that.

True. I - or better, ''the mythicist who is in me'' - am both happy and disappointed by that answer by Hurtado. Since it is really (in my view) the only answer still legitimate by a historicist.

Afterall, why do I like the marcionites? Not surely for their being historicists, but uniquely for a sense of pure opposition to the proto-Catholic tradition (of which I consider the academic HJ gild the last residue in the post-modern age).

I have a few longstanding thoughts on this whole matter which are probably best summarized as a list:

• The (proto-)Catholics were (and still are) more inclusive than exclusive. They were able to absorb almost any idea about what Jesus was: the Messiah/Christ, the prophet like Moses, a new Elijah/Elisha figure, the son of God, the heir of David, second member of the Trinity, and so on. They were capable of great syncretism, as well: if your personal bent was more polytheistic than monotheistic, you could treat the saints like godlings; if you were ascetic, you could join a convent; if you liked the idea of a goddess, you could worship Mary.
• Many of the so-called heretical groups, on the other hand, were more exclusive than inclusive. Marcionites, for example, could not tolerate Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Certain Jewish-Christian groups could not tolerate Jesus being divine. None of these groups could get along with Catholicism, so long as they remained exclusive; nor, however, could any of them get along with each other, so there was no way to "gang up" on the Catholics. I suspect that, in the end, Catholicism's cultural victory was at least partly due to their inclusive umbrella.
• Since Catholicism was so inclusive, the only way to mark oneself off as something other than Catholic was to vehemently disagree with one of its (mostly inclusive) tenets. Just to affirm something (Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus is in heaven, and I am an ascetic) would not be enough; you would have to deny something (Jesus is not god, Jesus was not a man, Jesus is not in heaven, though Christ is, and nobody who is not ascetic is okay with God).
• Therefore, once the idea that Jesus Christ had been a man who lived and died took hold (for whatever reason, whether historical or ahistorical), the only way to mark oneself off as a true mythicist would be to deny that Jesus had ever been a man. To affirm that he was a divinity would not be enough; Catholicism was fine with that.
• The heresiologists scoured the religious landscape for any and all heresies they could scare up and criticize. There is even evidence that they practically invented a few heresies, based on hopeful misunderstandings, just to knock them down. I remember reading an article about the prospect of discovering new bird species around the world, and the author said that it was virtually impossible that there are new species of birds waiting to be discovered in North America and Western Europe, simply because there are so many eager bird watchers in those areas, and have been for decades. Well, the heresiologists strike me as having done for heresies what bird watchers do for birds, if you will; there were enough of them on the hunt over the course of decades and even centuries that it seems very doubtful that a heretical group was denying that Jesus ever walked the earth any time after the gospel story was being taken seriously. If people were denying it, they kept it a secret and took it to their grave. This is why I find Doherty's assertions about the Logos apologists to be very hard to credit: I find it incredible that a whole raft of influential mythicist authors were writing those apologies right under the noses of the heresiologists without being noticed.
• These observations, however, leave open the possibility that there were mythicists before the gospel story either took place or took hold, since before then there would be nothing to deny. This is one of the driving factors behind my hybrid approach to Christian origins. In that reconstruction, a kind of mythicism morphed into historicism. Any purely mythicist group which embraced the identification of its cosmic savior or revealer with the historical man Jesus would be Christian (and now historicist, even if only docetic or whatnot). Any purely mythicist group which rejected this identification would not even be considered Christian; it would be one of the Jewish sects or whatnot. The best way for mythicists to slip under the historicist radar, in other words, is to predate the invention of that radar.
• To my mind, none of this proves that there was an historical Jesus, at least not without a lot of further argumentation. The possibility remains that there was only one mythicist, or a scant handful at most, who wrote the first gospel story as a symbolic narrative for the religion, which was then immediately and thoroughly misunderstood by later tradents as historical. I think that, if this gospel author (or set of gospel authors) belonged to a community which insisted on a mythical Jesus for more than a few years after the story was being taken seriously, that community would have been detected by the heresiologists. (For the record, I am not all that fond of this possibility, but I admit that it is one.)
• All of these observations are mitigated, of course, if there are heresies of a mythicist bent described by the heresiologists. Giuseppe, did you not find some passages which may possibly be interpreted in that way? I think I remember remaining unimpressed with one or some of your examples but curious about one or two others.

[Giuseppe]

Any purely mythicist group which rejected this identification would not even be considered Christian; it would be one of the Jewish sects or whatnot.

I (or better, Rylands) referred to this possibility (that a mythicist sect was identified by Epiphanius as a Jewish sect not even Christian since it talked about a celestial Christ but without to do the name of Jesus).
Rylands says also that this Epiphanius's evidence is more important than others since he wrote from a position of consolidated proto-Catholic power hence without more need to lie about these enemies.

Giuseppe, did you not find some passages which may possibly be interpreted in that way? I think I remember remaining unimpressed with one or some of your examples but curious about one or two others.[/list]

I have posted about presumed evidence of Jesus skepticism by Christians and Pagans in Iraeneus and in the Clementine Recognitions. But nothing about an archangel Jesus, viz., nothing in comparison to a so evident evidence of ''mythicist'' belief as this:

Pierre de Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis:

They declared that all of the patriarchs of the Old Testament were damned; they asserted that John the Baptist was one of the greatest devils.

And they also said in their secret meetings that the Christ who was born in the earthly and visible Bethlehem and crucified in Jerusalem was evil; and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine; and that she was the woman taken in adultery of whom we read in Scripture [John 8:3].

Indeed, the good Christ they say neither ate nor drank nor assumed the true flesh, nor was he ever in this world except spiritually in the body of Paul. But for this reason we say "in the earthly and visible Bethlehem": The heretics believe there to be another earth, new and invisible, and in this second earth some of them believe the good Christ was crucified.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2500

The belief in two crucifixions is one of their most secret doctrines (est unum de secretissimis eorum). They dare not preach it publicly, for fear that the people will scandalize.

(from Liber suprastella of Salvo Burci)

[MrMacSon]

I have a few longstanding thoughts on this whole matter which are probably best summarized as a list:

1. The (proto-)Catholics were (and still are) more inclusive than exclusive. They were able to absorb almost any idea about what Jesus was: the Messiah/Christ, the prophet like Moses, a new Elijah/Elisha figure, the son of God, the heir of David, second member of the Trinity, and so on. They were capable of great syncretism, as well: if your personal bent was more polytheistic than monotheistic, you could treat the saints like godlings; if you were ascetic, you could join a convent; if you liked the idea of a goddess, you could worship Mary.
2. Many of the so-called heretical groups, on the other hand, were more exclusive than inclusive. Marcionites, for example, could not tolerate Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Certain Jewish-Christian groups could not tolerate Jesus being divine. None of these groups could get along with Catholicism, so long as they remained exclusive; nor, however, could any of them get along with each other, so there was no way to "gang up" on the Catholics. I suspect that, in the end, Catholicism's cultural victory was at least partly due to their inclusive umbrella.
3. Since Catholicism was so inclusive, the only way to mark oneself off as something other than Catholic was to vehemently disagree with one of its (mostly inclusive) tenets. Just to affirm something (Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus is in heaven, and I am an ascetic) would not be enough; you would have to deny something (Jesus is not god, Jesus was not a man, Jesus is not in heaven, though Christ is, and nobody who is not ascetic is okay with God).
4. Therefore, once the idea that Jesus Christ had been a man who lived and died took hold (for whatever reason, whether historical or ahistorical), the only way to mark oneself off as a true mythicist would be to deny that Jesus had ever been a man. To affirm that he was a divinity would not be enough; Catholicism was fine with that.
5. The heresiologists scoured the religious landscape for any and all heresies they could scare up and criticize. There is even evidence that they practically invented a few heresies, based on hopeful misunderstandings, just to knock them down. I remember reading an article about the prospect of discovering new bird species around the world, and the author said that it was virtually impossible that there are new species of birds waiting to be discovered in North America and Western Europe, simply because there are so many eager bird watchers in those areas, and have been for decades. Well, the heresiologists strike me as having done for heresies what bird watchers do for birds, if you will; there were enough of them on the hunt over the course of decades and even centuries that it seems very doubtful that a heretical group was denying that Jesus ever walked the earth any time after the gospel story was being taken seriously. If people were denying it, they kept it a secret and took it to their grave. This is why I find Doherty's assertions about the Logos apologists to be very hard to credit: I find it incredible that a whole raft of influential mythicist authors were writing those apologies right under the noses of the heresiologists without being noticed.
6. These observations, however, leave open the possibility that there were mythicists before the gospel story either took place or took hold, since before then there would be nothing to deny. This is one of the driving factors behind my hybrid approach to Christian origins. In that reconstruction, a kind of mythicism morphed into historicism. Any purely mythicist group which embraced the identification of its cosmic savior or revealer with the historical man Jesus would be Christian (and now historicist, even if only docetic or whatnot). Any purely mythicist group which rejected this identification would not even be considered Christian; it would be one of the Jewish sects or whatnot. The best way for mythicists to slip under the historicist radar, in other words, is to predate the invention of that radar.
7. To my mind, none of this proves that there was an historical Jesus, at least not without a lot of further argumentation.
8. The possibility remains that there was only one mythicist, or a scant handful at most, who wrote the first gospel story as a symbolic narrative for the religion, which was then immediately and thoroughly misunderstood by later tradents as historical. I think that, if this gospel author (or set of gospel authors) belonged to a community which insisted on a mythical Jesus for more than a few years after the story was being taken seriously, that community would have been detected by the heresiologists. (For the record, I am not all that fond of this possibility, but I admit that it is one.)
9. All of these observations are mitigated, of course, if there are heresies of a mythicist bent described by the heresiologists. Giuseppe, did you not find some passages which may possibly be interpreted in that way? I think I remember remaining unimpressed with one or some of your examples but curious about one or two others.

As usual, good commentary and propositions by Ben. I'd like to add some commentary, for feedback and discussion more than anything. I may come across as critical, but don't mean to be. I've numerated Ben's dot-points, and added one - number 8 - by breaking up the 7th dot-point.

I think 'proto-Catholic/Catholic inclusivity' v 'heretic group exclusivity' (#s 1-3) sets up a false dichotomy or might lead people to a false dichotomy, inadvertently at least. I certainly agree with

• "in the end, Catholicism's cultural victory was at least partly due to their inclusive umbrella" - #2

• "The heresiologists scoured the religious landscape for any and all heresies they could scare up and criticize" - #5

I think it would be good to propose tentative time frames for some of these concepts: especially when the heresiologists might have started 'scouring the landscape/s'.

And to (a) define or clarify 'Catholic'. I have a view that, because Christianity can be said to have most clearly coalesced or begun to coalesce under under Constantine in the east, especially at the Council of Nicea, its first concrete 'inclusive' manifestation could be said to be Orthodox rather than 'Catholic' (I wonder if Catholicism is more a reflection of what happened when or after the Christians got challenged or driven out of Constantinople several centuries later; re-establishing in Rome, Italy). To view early 'inclusive Christianity' as 'Orthodox' would seem to also include what we call the early Orthodox texts, canons, etc.

And to try to clarify (b) the period of the 'Jewish-Christians'. This is traditionally thought to end at the beginning of the 1st century, but I even wonder if the likes of Origen was a Jewish-Christian (the Hexpla was his greatest work, after all).

I thought these statements in #2 were interesting in contemplating the different groups in a certain period of the landscape -

• "Many of the so-called heretical groups, on the other hand, were more exclusive than inclusive. Marcionites, for example, could not tolerate Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Certain Jewish-Christian groups could not tolerate Jesus being divine. None of these groups could get along with Catholicism [what I have preferred to call early-Orthodoxy] ... "

#4 is a good point - a point of clarification or definition (and aligns with #6)

Ben, when you say "The best way for mythicists to slip under the historicist radar, in other words, is to predate the invention of that radar" (#6), do you mean mythicists then, or mythicists today?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, when you say "The best way for mythicists to slip under the historicist radar, in other words, is to predate the invention of that radar" (#6), do you mean mythicists then, or mythicists today?

I mean (hypothetical) mythicists back then. Once the heresy hunters started in earnest, had there been any mythicist groups functioning even within living memory, I think they would have been mentioned. (And, again, it is possible that they were mentioned, but that we are interpreting their beliefs in the light of the gospel story and missing their point; only a very thorough and open-minded search through all the heresiologists could disabuse us of such a misinterpretation, should we happen to hold one.)

[MrMacSon]

.... it is possible that they were mentioned, but that we are interpreting their beliefs in the light of the gospel story and missing their point ...

Cheers. I wonder if there might have been a few layers to this, involving shifting sands of 'orthodoxy', as well as the need for repeat declarations of heresy. The ongoing Arian heresy seems to have persisted to the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

[GakuseiDon]

I can accept the idea that the "orthodox" writers were basically people later and ignorant about the True Origins (therefore ignoring the existence of a possible "mythicist" sect).

I know that there is the idea that proto-historicists destroyed mythicist writings, but there is an elephant in the room that I've brought up many times: isn't most of the NT actually written by 'mythicist' Christians, at least according to mythicists like Doherty and Carrier? Somehow there was a 'handover' from the mythicist sect to the historicist one, which suggests some kind of interaction. That is, the 'mythicist' texts had established enough credibility to be gathered in the Second Century by the newly emerged 'proto-historicist' groups as key documents.

Even if some version of the Mythicist theory becomes mainstream, it is still a question that would need to be addressed.

[MrMacSon]

... isn't most of the NT actually written by 'mythicist' Christians .. ?

No. That the Pauline narratives are largely gnostic is overshadowed by the likelihood they were co-opted to lay down early-Christianity and to tell and embellish Jesus and his disciple stories.

... the 'mythicist' texts had established enough credibility to be gathered in the Second Century by the newly emerged 'proto-historicist' groups as key documents.

It is clear to me that 2nd century church Fathers' were either philosophising about or arguing for, or even laying down, a 'historical', human Jesus, particularly Irenaeus. Eusebius was laying down of filling in 'history' too.

There would not have been a " 'handover' from 'the mythicist sect' to 'the historicist one.'"