WHO’s WHO: Mythicists and Mythicist Agnostics

[maryhelena]

The trick with Christianity is that its faith is not just in other-worldliness but is in history. The faith of Christianity is a faith in a historical event.

There is no 'trick' here......
The culture from which Christianity sprung, OT culture, was a culture in which god intervening in history was a very big part.

History is actually theology. Its theological message is about history.

History is history!
It is from history that a 'theological message about...history' is derived

.

So it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account.

One believes a historical account via evidence.
Faith comes into play regarding an interpretation of that history - via prophecy - or via finding some spiritual meaning within or from that history.

This is the cultural heritage of Christianity -- the theological message of a theological historical event. God entered history.

"..a theological historical event". No such thing! There is, however, a theological interpretation of history.

So it has been as fundamental to Christian civilizations to take for granted the existence of Jesus as easily as they assume the existence of God. It has from the beginning been heresy to doubt either.

The historical existence of Jesus is an assumption brought about from a theological based reading of the gospel story.

All that has happened since the Enlightenment is an attempt to remove the theology from the history. The assumption is that the history was real history to begin with -- failing to fully grasp that the history was really a theological illusion from the outset.

Indeed, the assumption that the gospel story was history is unfounded. However, "...an attempt to remove the theology from history.." (I take it this is a reference to the gospel story being assumed to be history) is to bowdlerize the gospel story. The gospel story is what it is: a mix of theology, mythology, allegory etc.

Trying to find the historical Jesus is as vain as trying to find Noah's ark.

Indeed, no historical Jesus - and no historical Paul either. Methinks its vain to believe one can dump one and maintain the historical existence of the other....

God intervening in history is OT theology. That theology did not change with Christianity. That means that history mattered as much to the gospel writers as it did to the writers of the OT. History is fundamental. Reality matters. Consequently, the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory, a theory without any historical grounding, is seriously handicapped as an explanation of early christian origins. It can't make headway against the Jesus historicists (meaning christians here) because that theory, it's obvious shortcoming notwithstanding, holds to the Biblical principle that god intervenes in history. The fact that the gospel Jesus is a literary creation and not historical does not negate the fundamental OT principle.

Sure, from an atheist perspective, the Biblical god intervening in history is simply an assertion. However, that assertion does not negate the role that history played in the creation of the OT stories. Thus, while the gospel story is not history, the very real possibility that this story arose from actual historical events is always there; that this gospel story reflects Jewish history; that it is, in effect, an interpretation, a theological interpretation of actual history.

The Jesus historicists (here meaning the millions of christians) will stand their ground that god intervenes in history. They won't be swayed by notions of a historicizing of a Pauline celestial Christ figure. The principle is fundamental. Reality matters. Historical reality mattered to the gospel writers.

[MrMacSon]

"So it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account" ... despite the accounts being riddled with implausible supernatural 'events', and the accounts not being adequately documented to meet reasonable standards of historical methodology, such as other accounts.

More likely "because", not "despite". What else is God acting in history if not a miracle? Without that there would be no faith, nothing to believe, no theology, no Christianity.

Yes, good point. Another factor is the role of sacrifice & salvation theology, portrayed in a plausible-human way (cf. 'implausible' as I first said)

• "So it was, from the beginning, a required article of faith that one believe certain accounts ... because those accounts were riddled with plausible supernatural 'events' as sacrifice or salvation theology, or both

add - or

• So it was, from the beginning, a required article of faith that one believe certain accounts because they were theology riddled with plausible supernatural 'events' as human-induced sacrifice or human-induced salvation, or both

[Clive]

Why does nazarenus get ignored? If astrology is in, why not a professor who dabbled in Egyptology? Newton dabbled in alchemy.

Ever since the Enlightenment, when the gospels began to be studied in a rationalistic frame of mind as literary works within their ancient context, parallels have been drawn between the passion of Jesus and the rituals and mysteries of the dying and resurrecting gods such as Dionysus and Osiris. The death and resurrection of Osiris was enacted annually in a dramatic performance. Greek tragedy evolved from sacred plays in honor of Dionysus. Did primitive Christianity, too, begin as ritual drama?

The economy of the Gospel narratives is related to the ritual commemoration of the Passion; taking them literally we run the risk of transposing into history what are really the successive incidents of a religious drama,

so wrote Alfred Loisy, one of the most perceptive New Testament scholars of our time.[2] J. M. Robertson went even further, claiming that the story of the passion is

the bare transcript of a primitive play... always we are witnessing drama, of which the spectators needed no description, and of which the subsequent transcriber reproduces simply the action and the words...[3]

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6] But none of these scholars has succeeded in reconstructing this drama or identifying its author. They came very close to the truth but missed a crucial element - the drama that constituted the kernel of the passion story was not a primitive ritual performance, but a tragedy of considerable subtlety and sophistication.

The gospels themselves contain evidence that the creator of this tragedy was someone imbued with the cultural values of the early Roman Empire, a playwright of unusual abilities, who used drama as a vehicle for expressing specific philosophical concepts. The gospels of Mark and Luke originated in Rome in the late fifties or early sixties A.D., a period that coincided with the last great flourishing of Roman tragedy in the work of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C.–65 A.D.). Seneca was the author of at least nine tragedies, all modeled on other, more ancient dramas. His philosophical writings are still admired for their elegant exposition of the Stoic view of life. Was it Seneca who wrote the tragedy on the passion of Jesus that the evangelists used in constructing their narratives? A question such as this can never be answered with certitude. It can be, however, adopted as a working hypothesis, whose success can be judged by the extent to which it helps solve the innumerable enigmas of the passion narratives.

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

OK the authors assume a Jesus but I think they argue cogently this is literature, which means is it based on a real person or uses a fictional character is moot.

And therefore definitely needs to be on the table of who's who, as possibly unconscious mythicists?

[Blood]

All that has happened since the Enlightenment is an attempt to remove the theology from the history. The assumption is that the history was real history to begin with -- failing to fully grasp that the history was really a theological illusion from the outset.

[Robert Tulip]

it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account.

What a silly comment that is.

Orthodoxy emerged slowly, and was by no means obligatory or even existent at the beginning of Christianity. The beginning is shrouded in mystery, apparently due to the nefarious work of the orthodox in concealing their suppression of the real origins.

Christianity started as a myth, like the story of Moses. As the politicians of faith found that they got more traction by insisting their myth was historical they banned alternative views. The Big Lie that Jesus Christ came in the flesh became the accepted story of Christendom, promoted by fire and sword.

2 John 1:7 says "many ... who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world". This proves that mythicism was widespread, and was only stamped out by violent bigotry. Claiming that historical belief in Jesus existed "from the beginning" serves ignorant dogma.

[DCHindley]

2 John 1:7 says "many ... who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world". This proves that mythicism was widespread, and was only stamped out by violent bigotry.

I thought that most commentators think that this refers to the idea that Jesus was really a Godlike being who did not actually possess a physical body, just the appearance of one.

How do you get that this really means Jesus Christ was thought by some to be a myth? While I would not rule it out, I don't think that 2 Jn 1:17 "proves" anything.

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

That's my whole problem with this 'mythicism' thing. I don't like the inherent assumptions at the heart of the terminology. There is no evidence whatsoever that this was meant as a 'story' that occurred outside of normal space and time. The fact Celsus decides to argue FOR Jesus's historical existence even though - as many modern commentators have noted- the Marcionites (or those espousing similar beliefs) were numerically superior (or at least extremely influential) at the time he was writing demonstrates IMO that ancients didn't find the idea of a heavenly visitation at all problematic. Ancient stupid people were open to the idea of 'alien visitations' as their modern contemporaries it would seem.

[Ulan]

Ancient stupid people were open to the idea of 'alien visitations' as their modern contemporaries it would seem.

See Paul and Barnabas as Zeus and Hermes in Acts.

[Clive]

That's my whole problem with this 'mythicism' thing. I don't like the inherent assumptions at the heart of the terminology. There is no evidence whatsoever that this was meant as a 'story' that occurred outside of normal space and time

How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution of land and water on the globe?

What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches, dogheaded people?

This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages.

Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so. The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues.

By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share.

Fascinating study of the invention of the supernatural in the Middle Ages
By one of Europe's leading medieval historians
Essential reading for scholars and students of medieval history and medieval studies

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/su ... iddle-ages

I think we are attempting to explain thinking before "supernatural" gods were invented. The idea of the "mythical" Jesus seems to be coterminus with this.

Actually I think Jesus Christ is a classic chimera, like Chiron, part horse , part man, the teacher of Achilles and Patroclus, but this time an interesting one - fully god fully man.

I think a lot of this heaven earth stuff is easily resolved by checking assumptions and using the actual examples around then.

[neilgodfrey]

it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account.

What a silly comment that is.

Oh my god, Robert. I am beginning to wonder if I have yet to see you quote a single word of mine in context.

I wrote:

The faith of Christianity is a faith in a historical event. History is actually theology. Its theological message is about history.

SO it was from the beginning a required article of faith that one believe a certain historical account.

Had I been addressing the beginnings of Christianity per se I certainly would have worded things differently. But I was speaking of Christianity today and "its" -- (that is what we understand as today's Christianity) -- beginnings.

Surely you know I have never argued, in fact I have argued against, the gospel of Mark being understood literally at the first. You regularly just strip words of mine from their context to make them sound whatever you seem to want them to say. The same way you strip Tom Harpur's words from their context, and the words of Josephus and Philo and Ptolemy . . . .