John the Baptist Mythicism

[Giuseppe]

The Nir's analysis obliges me to think that Mcn 9:9 is at the origin of the entire myth of John killed by Herod, but the mention of Herod in Mcn 9:9 is fully explained by the clear agenda of pointing out the fact that John is not Jesus, i.e. that John is not the Christ, according to the same 'independent' witness of Herod, as impartial witness.

Now, who were the Jewish-Christians who, in their arrogance, could arrive to think about themselves as Christs of their own right?

The Ebionites, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionites) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the ( Ebionites allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

(pseudo-Hyppolitus, 7:34)

So my point is that the "rival" hearsay about John the Baptist being risen as 'Jesus', i.e. as 'Christ' — a hearsay denied by Herod in the holy fable —, is invented by Marcion in order to attack the ebionites, with their arrogant claim that,
"when in like manner they fulfil the law, are able to become Christs".

So the ebionites are really the 'followers of John' in Mcn.

[Giuseppe]

So I am indebted totally to Nir for her conclusion that John was 100% a Jewish-Christian icon, and even so, I distance myself from Nir's view insofar I think that in the first gospel (Mcn) John is really described negatively precisely as a Jewish-Christian (ebionite) icon.

I can conclude so given the same Nir's logic:

Wink argues, rightly, that had the evangelist really faced an independent worship of John rivaling Jesus, and intended to undermine it, he would not have assigned to John such a prominent role in this Gospel. Rather, we would expect to see John as a false messiah and antichrist, or at least portrayed antagonistically, as are the 'Jews'. Instead, the Fourth Gospel, more than any other source, traces the development of the church directly to John's disciples.

(ibid., p. 185, my bold)

Well: in Mcn we have precisely a John 'portrayed antagonistically, as are the 'Jews'.

Without no hope of redemption for him.

[Chrissy Hansen]

To try and catch up here:

I would not classify Doudna's article as JtB mythicist, but identity theorist. I.e., argues that the identities have been misplaced. I don't think this is the same as advocating ahistoricity in and of itself. For instance, I would not consider Lena Einhorn a mythicist.
----
To reply to Giuseppe, I would, if you take that approach where John could have been a more contemporary figure to Marcion, classify that as a Temporal theorist, not mythicist. You still have a historical core there.

[Giuseppe]

----
To reply to Giuseppe, I would, if you take that approach where John could have been a more contemporary figure to Marcion, classify that as a Temporal theorist, not mythicist. You still have a historical core there.

(my bold)

Precisely. Thanks.

[Giuseppe]

Chris, I would add to your list the great Bernard Dubourg. I have quoted him about John the Baptist here.

His theory explains why 'John' is only a name, yet not the better candidate, for the ideal Messiah.

His theory is able to capture the genesis of the antagonism between Jesus and John: the genesis is purely literary.

In my humble opinion, Dubourg is the only mythicist who is able to rival validly with the Carrier-Doherty's paradigm, insofar his theory doesn't require hallucinators (or presumed such) at the origin of the sect, but only skilled writers.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Chris, I would add to your list the great Bernard Dubourg. I have quoted him about John the Baptist here.

His theory explains why 'John' is only a name, yet not the better candidate, for the ideal Messiah.

His theory is able to capture the genesis of the antagonism between Jesus and John: the genesis is purely literary.

In my humble opinion, Dubourg is the only mythicist who is able to rival validly with the Carrier-Doherty's paradigm, insofar his theory doesn't require hallucinators (or presumed such) at the origin of the sect, but only skilled writers.

Added!

I personally find the Soviet mythicists, particularly Kryvelev and Lentsman to be decent rivals to Carrier-Doherty. I personally think Doherty's own work is better than Carrier's, tbh. And I think Couchoud is better than both.

[Giuseppe]

I personally find the Soviet mythicists, particularly Kryvelev and Lentsman to be decent rivals to Carrier-Doherty. I personally think Doherty's own work is better than Carrier's, tbh. And I think Couchoud is better than both.

Beyond the tastes of each, Couchoud, the Soviet mythicists, Carrier, Doherty, etc are all placed in the same paradigm. But Dubourg is very different. With him we can't talk about a 'myth' of Jesus, and not even about a 'hoax' à la Atwill. At most one may talk of midrash, speculation, of pure invention from the day one...

More this invention was without details in its first apparition, more probably also Dubourg's view has to be absorbed in the Doherty-paradigm as a its mere instance.

Unfortunately, Dubourg didn't specify never, before his premature death (only 47 years), to what extent this invented ideal figure was worshiped as a personal entity, the first time it was fabricated on paper.

[Chrissy Hansen]

I don't really consider the Soviet mythicists in the same paradigm. In fact, they each had their own and were not beholden to any particular school. They tended to be more influenced by the Dutch Radicals and Drews, than they were Couchoud or the similar celestial Jesus models.

[Giuseppe]

I don't really consider the Soviet mythicists in the same paradigm. In fact, they each had their own and were not beholden to any particular school. They tended to be more influenced by the Dutch Radicals and Drews, than they were Couchoud or the similar celestial Jesus models.

by 'paradigm', I mean what prof Stevan Davies meant, in his 'famous' (?) comment about Doherty's view;

I haven’t read [Thomas] Kuhn in a coon’s age, but recall something to
the effect that a prevailing scientific paradigm gradually
accumulates problematic elements that are swept under the
rug until a new paradigm appears, accounting for those elements,
at which time it becomes clear (where it did not before) that
those problematic elements should have indicated fatal flaws
in the former paradigm.

Earl’s paradigm is a paradigm. It’s not simply a reworking of
the usual materials in the usual way to come up with a different
way of understanding them. It’s not an awful lot different than
the claim “there is no such thing as phlogiston*, fire comes
about through an entirely different mechanism.”

New paradigms are very very rare. I thought that my J the H
gave a new paradigm rather than just another view on the
subject, but no. Earl’s is what a new paradigm looks like.
(And if he’s not the first to advance it, what the hell.)
A new paradigm asserts not that much of what you know
is wrong but that everything you know is wrong… more or
less. Your whole perspective is wrong. The simple thing to
do is to want nothing to do with such a notion, which
simple thing has been violently asserted on crosstalk by
various people. Indeed, at the outset of this discussion,
more than one person asserted that since this is an Historical
Jesus list, we presuppose the Historical Jesus, therefore
a contrary paradigm should not even be permitted on the list.
I think this is cognate to the establishment’s reaction to Galileo.

But it’s not that Earl advocates lunacy in a manner devoid
of learning. He advocates a position that is well argued
based on the evidence and even shows substantial knowledge
of Greek. But it cannot be true, you say. Why not? Because
it simply can’t be and we shouldn’t listen to what can’t be
true. No. Not so quick.

The more you think about early Christianity from the perspective
of the new paradigm, the more the old paradigm can be seen
to be flawed. … and the more the rather incoherent efforts to
make those flaws disappear seem themselves flawed.
Ptolemaic astronomy does work, sort of, if you keep patching
it up. So we can say that the host of Historical Jesus scholars
haven’t got it right, but we know that they are going about
it more or less the right way because it’s the only way we
know of. Or indeed we say that HJ scholars are going about
a task that is just impossible, but still their goal is in theory,
however impossible in practice, the right goal. Really?

This isn’t to guarantee that Earl’s arguments are always
correct… I’m not at all pleased with the redating of Mark etc.
Or that he’s thought of everything… the normative Jesus
who is a Galilean Jew whose followers immediately were
subject to persecution by the pharisee Paul are huge holes
the standard paradigm just ignores… but he’s thought of a lot.

You cannot advance very far in thinking if you simply refuse
to adopt a new paradigm and see where it takes you. Even
if, ultimately, you reject it, the adoption of it, or at least the
effort to argue against it, will take you to places you have not
been before. Hence Goranson (an intelligent knowledgeable
person, thus the foil for this letter) is wrong.

Stephen Carlson’s objections to Earl on the grounds that
Mark is evidence for an historical Jesus just takes the
standard paradigm and asserts it. That’s one way of going
about it, as pointing to the self-evident fact that the sun
goes around the earth will nicely refute Copernicus.
But it’s not that simple.

But in going along with Earl I’ve learned more than
by going along with anybody else whose ideas I’ve come
across anywhere. I went along with Mark Goodacre, and
learned some there. Refusing to go along, refusing even to
argue against, being happy that nothing new is being
discussed except widgets of modification to the standard
paradigm, that’s where you really learn almost nothing.

Crossan, or Johnson, Allison or Sanders, can give you slightly
different views of the standard view. Earl gives a completely
different view. His is a new paradigm, theirs are shifts in
focus within the old paradigm. From whom will you learn
more?

Steve

[schillingklaus]

There is no such thing as a historical core whatsoever of John B, it is all Judaization and Euhemerization of a philosophical myth. Giscal, Hurcanus, and their ilk have at most served for the purpose of appropriation.