WHO’s WHO: Mythicists and Mythicist Agnostics

[neilgodfrey]

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

Quite apart from any mythicism discussion, does not the Greek actually read "is come" in the flesh?

[DCHindley]

(BGT 2Jo 1:7) BGT 2 John 1:7 Ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ (which ones) μὴ (not) ὁμολογοῦντες (they are professing) Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν (Jesus Christ) ἐρχόμενον (coming)* ἐν (in) σαρκί (flesh)· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

(RSV 2Jo 1:7) RSV 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

*verb participle present middle accusative masculine singular (the trick is the middle form)

DCH

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.

Quite apart from any mythicism discussion, does not the Greek actually read "is come" in the flesh?

[Robert Tulip]

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

Thanks DCH. If Jesus was considered by "many" to be "really a Godlike being who did not actually possess a physical body, just the appearance of one", then from this Docetic perspective the dogma that he actually did "possess a physical body" is incorrect, and therefore a myth.

Docetism is Mythicism. The Gnostic spiritual elite who constructed the Christ Story were entirely mythicist, and their teachings were stamped out by corrupt politics. That is what the 2 John threat was all about.

[Ulan]

If I understood this correctly, it's not that easy. A "spritual body" was not necessarily "non-physical", it was a body made from "spirit matter". Matter from the spiritual realm, not from the earthly realm. Otherwise, the Docetist speculation over how exactly this body made of spirit matter passed through the mother made from earthly matter would make no sense. Also, see the discussion over how he ate and drank.

The second problematic notion is that Christ would have been seen as a myth by Docetists. That is certainly not the case. He was seen as real. The term "myth" is usually only used by non-believers in such a context.

The statement that "Docetism is Mythicism" on the other hand may be true or not true. In principle, the only question that is dealt with in Docetism is the nature of the body of Christ. His Docetist followers wanted to divorce their divine leader from earthly taint. But this is relatively independent from the question whether this putatively divine leader actually existed (then of course as a human being) or not.

[MrMacSon]

If I understood this correctly, it's not that easy. A "spritual body" was not necessarily "non-physical", it was a body made from "spirit matter". Matter from the spiritual realm, not from the earthly realm. Otherwise, the Docetist speculation over how exactly this body made of spirit matter passed through the mother made from earthly matter would make no sense.

The second problematic notion is that Christ would have been seen as a myth by Docetists. That is certainly not the case. He was seen as real. The term "myth" is usually only used by non-believers in such a context.

But isn't this all portrayal, via a narrative?

more .... "He was seen [portrayed] as real"

ie. what he was portrayed as being made from is merely a narrative?

Hence -

... In principle, the only question that is dealt with in Docetism is the nature of the body of Christ. His Docetist followers wanted to divorce their divine leader from earthly taint ...

[Ulan]

But isn't this all portrayal, via a narrative?
more .... "He was seen [portrayed] as real"
ie. what he was portrayed as being made from is merely a narrative?

Yes, but these are all different questions. While we can clearly say that Docetism is a myth, apart from obvious reasons also because nobody believes in Docetism nowadays, so nobody takes it for reality, that doesn't change that
1. Docetists most probably believed that Christ really existed and did these things, which means he was not a myth for them, and
2. It doesn't tell us anything about whether Christ was a real person or not, just that a real person would obviously not have a body from spirit matter.

I mean, you know Kim Jong-Il, right?

Soviet records show that Kim was born Yuri Irsenovich Kim in the village of Vyatskoye, near Khabarovsk, in 1941, where his father, Kim Il-sung, commanded the 1st Battalion of the Soviet 88th Brigade, made up of Chinese and Korean exiles. Kim Jong-il's mother, Kim Jong-suk, was Kim Il-sung's first wife. Inside his family, he was nicknamed Yura, while his younger brother Kim Man-il (born Alexander Irsenovich Kim) was nicknamed Shura.

However, Kim Jong-il's official biography states he was born in a secret military camp on Baekdu Mountain in Japanese-occupied Korea on 16 February 1942. Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow across the sky over the mountain and a new star in the heavens.

That silly birth myth doesn't make him mythical.

[MrMacSon]

.
Yes, "Docetists most probably believed that Christ really existed and did these things, which means he was not a myth for them" ...

... but that doesn't make "Docetism a myth"; it makes Docetism [a belief-system] based on a myth.
.

[Ulan]

... but that doesn't make "Docetism a myth"; it makes Docetism [a belief-system] based on a myth.

Yes, that would be a more appropriate way to put it.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers; I don't mean to be patronising per se or outright sanctimonious; but I do think semantics, and the way we describe these things, helps clarity - there are so many dimensions to all of the things we discuss here. Regards.

[Ulan]

Cheers; I don't mean to be patronising per se or outright sanctimonious; but I do think semantics, and the way we describe these things, helps clarity - there are so many dimensions to all of the things we discuss here. Regards.

Agreed. The most unfortunate term in this regard is the word "mythicism" itself, given that it became exclusively connected to the nature of the figure Jesus with regard to history.