The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
For "best historicist case" I mean:
The reason the Gospel Jesus resembles so many Josephian figures is because he was one of them. Therefore: Jesus existed.
It is therefore expected that te best mythicist case reads as the following:
The reason the Gospel Jesus resembles so many Josephian figures is because he was the literary synthesis of many of them. Therefore: Jesus didn't exist.
I note therefore that the Doherty/Carrier's view of hallucinations/mystical pre-70 experiences at the origin of the Christianity doesn't fit the evidence insofar the hallucinations/mystical pre-70 experiences don't explain debtly the post-70 Gospel attention about earthly Josephian figures. If Carrier insists that Paul was totally apolitical, then how does he explain the political interests of post-70 Christianity? Afterall, if you make the literary synthesis of Josephian political figures, then you are going to do de facto politics, even if only in a veiled form.
I am inclined therefore to re-value the (Van Manen's and) Joseph Turmel's view of the historical Paul as a mere follower of a messianist, later updated in a mystical/hallucinatory figure only by Gnostic and Marcionite sects.
If the historical Paul was a follower of a real messianist, then the latter was only one of the many figures of which the Gospel Jesus is the literary synthesis. Could this "real messianist" be considered, in virtue of this relation with his mere propagandist Paul, THE "historical Jesus"?
The reason the Gospel Jesus resembles so many Josephian figures is because he was one of them. Therefore: Jesus existed.
It is therefore expected that te best mythicist case reads as the following:
The reason the Gospel Jesus resembles so many Josephian figures is because he was the literary synthesis of many of them. Therefore: Jesus didn't exist.
I note therefore that the Doherty/Carrier's view of hallucinations/mystical pre-70 experiences at the origin of the Christianity doesn't fit the evidence insofar the hallucinations/mystical pre-70 experiences don't explain debtly the post-70 Gospel attention about earthly Josephian figures. If Carrier insists that Paul was totally apolitical, then how does he explain the political interests of post-70 Christianity? Afterall, if you make the literary synthesis of Josephian political figures, then you are going to do de facto politics, even if only in a veiled form.
I am inclined therefore to re-value the (Van Manen's and) Joseph Turmel's view of the historical Paul as a mere follower of a messianist, later updated in a mystical/hallucinatory figure only by Gnostic and Marcionite sects.
If the historical Paul was a follower of a real messianist, then the latter was only one of the many figures of which the Gospel Jesus is the literary synthesis. Could this "real messianist" be considered, in virtue of this relation with his mere propagandist Paul, THE "historical Jesus"?
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
Not sure about thatthe Gospel Jesus resembles so many Josephian figure
It could just be a so-repeated trope that it has become lore
Moreover, no-one in Josephus is referred to as a Messiah figure (other then what I think are dubious references to Jesus Christ in Antiquities 18.3.3/63-4 (the ‘TF’) and 20.9.1/200). The assertion that there are other Messiah figures in Josephus is baseless (and Messiah-like is a stretch, too)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
What messianist might Paul have followed? Who?
I am inclined therefore to re-value the (Van Manen's and) Joseph Turmel's view of the historical Paul as a mere follower of a messianist, later updated in a mystical/hallucinatory figure only by Gnostic and Marcionite sects.
If the historical Paul was a follower of a real messianist, then the latter was only one of the many figures of which the Gospel Jesus is the literary synthesis. Could this "real messianist" be considered ...
What internal and external evidence is there for such a proposal?
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
prof Christophe Batsch argues for pre-70 messianism in the Diaspora (and by logical implication: in Judea, too).
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
Greg Doudna thinks that Paul was a follower of Jesus ben Sapphas.
Joseph Turmel thought that Paul was a follower of a Jesus resembling too much Judas the Galilean.
I assume that the readers know their cases.
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
This is a good book for a very good price (I think the kindle version is free)
Messianic Expectations: From the Second Temple Era through the Early Centuries of the Common Era, 2018, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Expect ... 1720290393
Messianic Expectations: From the Second Temple Era through the Early Centuries of the Common Era, 2018, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Expect ... 1720290393
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
Nope, I’ve never heard or read those propositions (or I’ve forgotten I had)
I think they’re a case of trying for ‘best fit’ but are unlikely to be what happened.
Though I am sympathetic to Frans Vermeiren’s propositions and argument in his book, A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity, that aspects of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth could be based on Josephus’ accounts of Jesus ben Sapphas/Sapphat/Sapphias
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
Thanks for info. I just downloaded the book from amazon uk - just £2.48.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:32 pm This is a good book for a very good price
Messianic Expectations: From the Second Temple Era through the Early Centuries of the Common Era, 2018, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Expect ... 1720290393
My reading list is getting rather long - so will be a week or two before I get into it ...
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
I also dowloaded the book now from Amazon. It's a very very basic book.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:50 pmThanks for info. I just downloaded the book from amazon uk - just £2.48.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:32 pm This is a good book for a very good price
Messianic Expectations: From the Second Temple Era through the Early Centuries of the Common Era, 2018, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Expect ... 1720290393
My reading list is getting rather long - so will be a week or two before I get into it ...
Most of the texts are underdeveloped with very short commentaries, some texts are completely absent, there are only few quotes from other scholars.
I guess it can be good for a first approach of the subject but for someone who has already read these Messianic texts, i think it's useless.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2950
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: The best mythicist case should explain the best historicist case
Your probably right - £2.48 was the hook......maybe it might reference other Jewish perspectives on the messiah issue....Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:34 amI also dowloaded the book now from Amazon. It's a very very basic book.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:50 pmThanks for info. I just downloaded the book from amazon uk - just £2.48.MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:32 pm This is a good book for a very good price
Messianic Expectations: From the Second Temple Era through the Early Centuries of the Common Era, 2018, by Juan Marcos Bejarano Gutierrez
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Expect ... 1720290393
My reading list is getting rather long - so will be a week or two before I get into it ...
Most of the texts are underdeveloped with very short commentaries, some texts are completely absent, there are only few quotes from other scholars.
I guess it can be good for a first approach of the subject but for someone who has already read these Messianic texts, i think it's useless.