How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
The internal evidence in the so-called 1 Clement places the writing at least no earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd century. The letter contains anachronisms. One such anachronism is the title of "bishops".
"Bishops" (root: episkopos) in 1 Clement does not mean city-wide (with surroundings) bishop, but just overseers. Notice the plural in 1 Clement 42:4 & 5. Could Corinth have several city-wide catholic/orthodox) bishops then? See also that the word "bishops" is closely associated with the lowly deacons. Same meaning in Philippians 1:1. Also in Acts 20:28 where "bishops" means the elders/presbyters of the Christians of Ephesus (20:17).
According to my extensive study on the Ignatian letters (http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html), the title & function of city-wide bishop among orthodox Christians started around 130 CE., at least in Asia minor.
Christian and non-Christian sources of the 2nd century state that the leader of the Church was called the President.
That's no surprise, because then "bishop" had started to be understood as city-wide bishop and could not be used for leader of a congregation. Apparently in Rome, in the times of Justin, the leader/overseer of a congregation was called "president".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:The internal evidence in the so-called 1 Clement places the writing at least no earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd century. The letter contains anachronisms. One such anachronism is the title of "bishops".
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:07 pm "Bishops" (root: episkopos) in 1 Clement does not mean city-wide (with surroundings) bishop, but just overseers. Notice the plural in 1 Clement 42:4 & 5. Could Corinth have several city-wide catholic/orthodox) bishops then? See also that the word "bishops" is closely associated with the lowly deacons. Same meaning in Philippians 1:1. Also in Acts 20:28 where "bishops" means the elders/presbyters of the Christians of Ephesus (20:17).
According to my extensive study on the Ignatian letters (http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html), the title & function of city-wide bishop among orthodox Christians started around 130 CE., at least in Asia minor.
Your claims appear to be inventions and are without corroboration.

The very first paragraph of the letter refers to the Churches of the whole cities of Rome and Corinth and in Christian writings it is claimed Clement was bishop of the entire city of Rome.

In any event, the use of the anachronisms "bishops" and "Churches of Rome and Corinth" are internal evidence that the so-called Clement letter are 2nd century or later writings.
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:07 pm According to my extensive study on the Ignatian letters (http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html), the title & function of city-wide bishop among orthodox Christians started around 130 CE., at least in Asia minor.
Well, based on my research, the so-called Ignatius letters are forgeries or false attribution and products of fiction. It is simply implausible that a person who was imprisoned for the crime of preaching and teaching about Christ would be allowed to continue the very same criminal activity while under arrest especially in the 1st century.

Where would this Ignatius get pen, paper and ink to carry out his crime in the presence of guards?

In the writings of Josephus, a character called Jesus, the son of Ananus, was beaten to a pulp and was not even imprisoned.

In effect, there was no bishop named Ignatius of any city who wrote letters to anyone while he was incarcerated.
hakeem wrote:Christian and non-Christian sources of the 2nd century state that the leader of the Church was called the President.
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:07 pmThat's no surprise, because then "bishop" had started to be understood as city-wide bishop and could not be used for leader of a congregation. Apparently in Rome, in the times of Justin, the leader/overseer of a congregation was called "president".

Cordially, Bernard
In the time of Justin there were no such title of bishop and no bishops of entire cities like Rome or any other city.
Justin supposedly writing after c 130 CE did not acknowledge any bishop of any Church and knew nothing of letters by bishops.

We know there were no bishops up to even the 3rd century by looking at the teachings in Christian writings up to that time period.

The teachings and beliefs of Christians are expounded by writers who were not known to have been bishops like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athenagoras, Bardesanes, Tertullian, Hippolytus , Lactantius and Arnobius.

The title of Bishops appear to have commenced sometime in the 4th century when the Roman Government took control of the Christian religion.

It is easily seen on research that it was in the 4th century and later that Bishops shaped the teachings and beliefs of Christians.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Your claims appear to be inventions and are without corroboration.
These are no inventions and I showed corroboration from Philippians and Acts.
Christian writings it is claimed Clement was bishop of the entire city of Rome.
That's not what the letter says.
I already told you that I take 1 Clement as written by a spokesman of the church of Rome, not necessarily Clement, not necessarily a bishop.
Actually, I don't care if Clement existed or not. And the letter never says that it was written by Clement or a bishop.
My dating is from the internal evidence, and not related to any Clement.
Well, based on my research, the so-called Ignatius letters are forgeries or false attribution and products of fiction. It is simply implausible that a person who was imprisoned for the crime of preaching and teaching about Christ would be allowed to continue the very same criminal activity while under arrest especially in the 1st century.

Where would this Ignatius get pen, paper and ink to carry out his crime in the presence of guards?

In the writings of Josephus, a character called Jesus, the son of Ananus, was beaten to a pulp and was not even imprisoned.

In effect, there was no bishop named Ignatius of any city who wrote letters to anyone while he was incarcerated.
I totally agree. However, these letters were addressed to Christian communities. That's not fiction.
In the time of Justin there were no such title of bishop and no bishops of entire cities like Rome or any other city.
Justin supposedly writing after c 130 CE did not acknowledge any bishop of any Church and knew nothing of letters by bishops.
Irenaeus and Hegesippus, both 2nd century authors, relates of city-wide bishops.
BTW, Justin wrote after 150 CE. And then again, these arguments from silence, with the (wrong) belief that Justin (or other) wrote about all he knew, and if he did not mention something, that was not existing.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by andrewcriddle »

arnoldo wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:58 pm
If Lucian of Samasota was historical then is the following writing attributed to him of any historical significance?
Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rinus.html

The passage is evidence of Lucian's knowledge of 2nd century Christian beliefs and practices. As such it is historically significant.
Whether or not the claim that Peregrinus early in his career professed Christianity is true is unclear.
IMVHO I tend to doubt it.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Secret Alias »

The Ignatian letter writing parallel is perhaps the most significant thing about the report. Even in antiquity the Ignatian corpus was suspicious
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by gmx »

hakeem wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:16 am [The teachings and beliefs of Christians are expounded by writers who were not known to have been bishops like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athenagoras, Bardesanes, Tertullian, Hippolytus , Lactantius and Arnobius.

The title of Bishops appear to have commenced sometime in the 4th century when the Roman Government took control of the Christian religion.

It is easily seen on research that it was in the 4th century and later that Bishops shaped the teachings and beliefs of Christians.
What say you of Irenaeus?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by toejam »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:12 pm
toejam wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:28 pm The mythical Jesus thing just doesn't hang together, in my opinion.

People like Carrier and Wells are left straining to interpret a Paul who doesn't think Jesus was ever here on Earth. In order to do so, they're left smudging the language Paul uses to identify Jesus as having been here on Earth, trying to shape them into possible alternatives - like fundamentalist Christians who try to smudge away biblical language that expects the apocalypse to have been imminent.
Wells never argued that Paul's Jesus was never on "here on Earth." Most mythicist arguments have never suggested Jesus was never on earth in the myth. The only ones I know of are Couchoud, Doherty and Carrier.

Had you read OHJ you would know you could well delete or reject his arguments on Paul and still make an overall similar assessment of the historicity of Jesus on the basis of remaining evidence and background knowledge. If you read OHJ you will know that Carrier says several key passages in Paul could indeed well fit the historicist paradigm -- contrary to the mythicist thesis.

Ehrman set a bad example when he demonstrated one could get away with not reading with any serious attentiveness the mythicist arguments and still be widely respected as having demolished those arguments.
I've read OHJ. Forgive me I don't recall every single nuance of it. I was certainly not unaware of the points you're suggesting I was. I find Carrier's views on Paul wrong headed. And I don't buy your claim that mythicism can still be assessed to be likely even if we reject Carrier's reading of Paul. I also did not say that most mythicist arguments conjecture a Paul who did not think Jesus had been on Earth. I was merely passing comment because Carrier's views are popular at the moment among the ranks of pop-atheists.

To be fair, I have not read Wells directly, however I was under the impression that he was one who got the ball rolling on this view of Paul. So I'm happy to retract an incorrect assumption about him if that's the case.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by neilgodfrey »

toejam wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:53 pm I've read OHJ. Forgive me I don't recall every single nuance of it. . . .


To be fair, I have not read Wells directly, however I was under the impression that he was one who got the ball rolling on this view of Paul. So I'm happy to retract an incorrect assumption about him if that's the case.
I get the impression that some readers of OHJ have merely skimmed it only to find what they are expecting to see. The whole point of Carrier writing a prequel volume, and the whole point of those sections in each chapter that many readers seemed to have ignored or found too technical or philosophical is to point out that the the entire corpus of evidence and background knowledge needs to be considered over and above any specific argument.

Carrier does indeed say that the evidence of controversial passages in Paul are as likely to favour historicism as to be expected on mythicism. We cannot ignore that as a minor "nuance". We can go further and reject the mythicist interpretation entirely. The point is that that one detail alone cannot decide the question. We then have to make a judgment about how our arguments sits with the rest of the evidence and background information.

That's not a tiny nuance. That's core to the entire argument -- and the reason Carrier repeatedly requests readers to make their own judgements about each of the points he raises.

Wells was directly opposed to the celestial view of Jesus as proposed by Doherty.

I long to see criticisms that are grounded in a knowledgeable reading of the works and scholars being criticized.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Giuseppe »

The only ones I know of are Couchoud, Doherty and Carrier.
also William B. Smith, G. L. Rylands and Georges Ory thought that Paul's Jesus died not on the earth.
While J. M. Robertson, Wells and Arthur Drews placed Jesus on the earth in an undefinite past. To my knowledge, the best point in the latter view is that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah died before Isaiah wrote about him. Wells accepted a historical Jesus behind Q (just as Carrier would do, if Q esisted really) but he always claimed that Paul's Jesus was entirely mythical.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by toejam »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:32 pmI get the impression that some readers of OHJ have merely skimmed it only to find what they are expecting to see. The whole point of Carrier writing a prequel volume, and the whole point of those sections in each chapter that many readers seemed to have ignored or found too technical or philosophical is to point out that the the entire corpus of evidence and background knowledge needs to be considered over and above any specific argument.
I listened to the audiobook of 'Proving History'. I've also read his 'Not the Impossible Faith', have watched most of his online debates, and read a lot of his blog. Aparently this still isn't enough to understand Carrier's genius ;). I'm still not convinced that he is is onto something with his view that Paul thought Jesus hadn't been here on Earth. Doesn't seem like you are, either. And I feel I'm well versed enough on the evidence and background knowledge (see my reading list below) to make that call.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Post Reply