Substitution Myths and Mythicism

[stephan happy huller]

One of the oldest and well established interpretations of the gospel involves two figures - one human the other divine - and at some point a 'switch' happened where the Jews thought they were crucifying Jesus but really they were nailing the hands of another mortal being. The tradition has many permutations and - we must acknowledge - the Church Fathers had a vested interest exaggerating the differences between the traditions. But as I have said many times before as many people believe in some form of this 'substitution myth' as do that Jesus himself was crucified (the opinion is held often secretly by almost every Muslim I have ever encountered). My question is, is this a new and unrecognized form of 'mythicism' or is this the weakest, most watered down form of 'historicism' (i.e. yes there was a historical crucifixion of a man but the crucified one wasn't Jesus). Given its survival and its early, early influence how is it that anyone can be sure what happened or who believed what first? Can't 'Jesus' or some related name just be the appellation that a divine being was given, a divine being who tabernacle with countless 'real people' after baptism? Why is this so unacceptable to historicists or mythicists for that matter?

What I think the substitution myth has going for it is that it is 'Biblical.' What I mean is that Jacob wrestling with the ish and the ish being identified as Jesus and Esau and Esau being a twin of Jacob and Jesus having a twin disciple named 'Judas' who seems to have been greatly revered in the East at a very early date all comes together to imply some sort of antiquity to the idea. I mean most people aren't aware of the 'substitution' of Jacob and the angel in Jewish mystical literature (i.e. that Jacob sits at the top of the heavenly ladder). Moses and the glory too have a similar feel (i.e. mortal and immortal 'twins').

I know white people like to treat the Bible as 'history' - an ancient equivalent to the newspaper or 60 minutes - but Jews never did. The Bible was as much poetry and song and art as anything. That gets lost on people because they don't read the material in its original language.

In fact one may make a strong case that it was understood as a kind of 'substitution' history - i.e. there was a history but this is just a veiled narrative pointing in its direction. The words on the page don't 'literally' describe what happened only 'point to' the understanding in the same way Moses is depicted as only seeing the godhead indirectly. This is what I don't get about the 'white people' debate. The Pentateuch wasn't meant to be taken literally. Even McGrath acknowledges this when he ridicules his other favorite punching bag - Creationists.

But if Genesis isn't to be taken literally where does it stop? Is Moses really the name of the person who led the Jews out of Egypt or was it a convenient numerologically based appellation for 'that man' (= Manetho's 'Osarseph' or 'Thutmoses') which a narrative could be constructed around (i.e. to allow for a substitution myth). Why isn't the same thing true with the gospel?

If Moses and the glory can 'switch' and 'Moses' is itself a made up name to 'assist' in the 'Biblical substitution myth' why isn't 'Jesus' treated the same way? Why is this a non-starter? If the gospel is based on the Pentateuch 'white people' should learn to read the gospel as Jews and Samaritans have done since the very beginning rather than their own stupid ancestors. The idea of a mythical substitution at the heart of the gospel is very 'Biblical.' Maybe not to Luther and Calvin and all those other stupid white people but to the people that count - the Semitic people - it was so natural that it survived and extinguished the 'Melkite' (= Roman) faith once the Byzantine armies couldn't force these alien doctrines on the original people of Jesus, Moses and Abraham.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Stephan,

In the story of Ester there's a switch. Haman has a gallows built to hang Mordecai. Thanks to Ester's intervention with the king, Haman himself gets executed on the gallows.
Obviously, in a switch story, the enemy of the man to be executed has to end up getting the punishment. Judas would be the natural candidate. Who do you think it was?

Warmly,
Jay Raskin

[ghost]

That's how they made Mohammed: through substitution. They did it in two phases.

1. 7th and 8th centuries AD: they took Jesus and called him "praiseworthy" ("muhammad"). That's proto-Mohammed.
2. 9th century AD and later: Ibn Hisham and/or Tabari wrote the full-fledged Mohammed story, which they attributed to an unattested Ibn Ishaq. Perhaps the name "Ibn Ishaq" is partly an allusion to Syriac katholikos Mar Ishaq, since Islam was an antitrinitarian reponse to the 410 AD synod where the East Syriac church adopted trinitarianism.

Luxenberg uses Roman numerals for the two phases. Proto-Mohammed is Mohammed I. The Mohammed of Ibn Hisham is Mohammed II.

[stephan happy huller]

Jay, and the hanged Haman and the crucified Jesus were often paralleled when the dates of Purim and Easter collided. Yes very good point. I forgot about that.

[stephan happy huller]

Ghost, (a term usually reserved for white people among Chinese speakers, an African American or black person = 'black ghost') I remember seeing the same letters for 'praised one' appear in the Syriac epistles of Paul relating to Jesus. You should check it out since you're into this stuff. Too much to do, too little time.

[billd89]

The Ladder (stair) Myth smells Egyptian to me. When was this bit written, in all probability?

Edit: dated optimistically to 1900 BC (following W.F. Albright) or much more likely to c.600 BC.

[mlinssen]

The Ladder (stair) Myth smells Egyptian to me. When was this bit written, in all probability?

Edit: dated optimistically to 1900 BC (following W.F. Albright) or much more likely to c.600 BC.

Interesting you should say that. Thomas likely refers to it in his logion 12, and with great disdain. Thomas surely has Egyptian traces, which I am currently following - but if you can lend a hand then I'd really appreciate it