Litwa on Marcion as ancient Mythicist

[RandyHelzerman]

I'm agreeing with you.

Wow, I'm honored, and I think I'll quit while I'm ahead

[Giuseppe]

But the Talmud placed Jesus under Janneus. The Jesus lived under Pilate was a myth, according to that Talmudic tradition.

Let me rephrase.....What is "Mythicism?" I'm trying to think of what Richard Carrier, Marcion, Robert Price, and the Talmud have in common, and its a riddle I just can't solve.

think about the definition of minimal historicity given by Richard Carrier. Paraphrasing it, it says in short that the same man of the epistles is also the guy meant in the gospels.

The Talmudic Jesus breaks that definition: the Janneus's Jesus (i.e. the Jesus meant in the epistles, if Wells and Ellegard are correct) is not the Pilate's Jesus. End of story.

Answering in advance to your objection: "but the Janneus's Jesus existed, he was not a deity!":

StephenGoranson helps the mythicists here: the deity Jesus was confused with a guy under Janneus, and the first gospel "corrected" that confusion, by placing the man Jesus under Pilate. A confusion was corrected by an invention.

[Giuseppe]

Ryan Covington (Hume's Apprentice) concedes the absence of evidence of mythicist accusations (even if I disagree) and yet he writes:

A surprising post from M. David Litwa. I’ve asked a question (will post if he answers) about whether Marcion’s ‘cosmic Christ’ was crucified in the upper air or if he meant something else entirely. I’ve also criticized Litwa because although ancient pagan critics will call the gospels myths (but fall short of explicitly saying Jesus was a myth) this does not, contra Litwa, offer much support for an historical Jesus. Most of these ancient people, especially from late first century and later, could not have verified or falsified a historical Jesus; and in calling the gospels myths they are perilously close to making that accusation anyway. What do you guys think?

(my bold)

On that premise, I answer that Celsus played with the idea that Jesus never existed when he conceded that Jesus was "regarded as really an angel": on that premise, Jesus should be counted, according to Celsus, in the list of other angels of the ancient mythology, without no originality at all:

“Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves.”

(Origen, Contra Celsum, 5:52, my bold)

Did Celsus believe that the other angels preceding Jesus came really to men? Doubt is allowed.

[RandyHelzerman]

End of story.

Hold on there cowboy

Point #1:

If a mythicist says "Jesus didn't exist", and a believer says "Jesus existed", well, they have completely different and contradictory beliefs about Jesus. But, are the mythicist and the believer referring to the same *person* when they use the word "Jesus"?

They *have* to be. Otherwise, if the mythicists is referring to a completely different person, then when he says "Jesus didn't exist" he wouldn't be denying the existence of *the same* Jesus the believer is believing in.

The upshot is, the Talmud can be saying completely different things about Jesus than the epistles or the gospels do. They can contradict each other on every point (just as the mythicist and the believer do). Nevertheless, they both can be referring to the same Jesus.

Point #2:
Alternately, they might be talking about two totally different Jesuses. Like "Jesus" in "The big Lebowsky" who as a mexican bowling champion isn't the same Jesus as the gospels and epistles.

In this case, if the Talmud explicitly said that Jesus didn't exist, it wouldn't be making any claims whatsoever about the Jesus of the epistles and gospels, because it is referring to a completely different person.

Ok, with those two points in mind, when you say:

The Talmudic Jesus breaks that definition: the Janneus's Jesus (i.e. the Jesus meant in the epistles, if Wells and Ellegard are correct) is not the Pilate's Jesus.

What, exactly, are you claiming?

1. The Talmudic Jesus is a completely different person from the Jesus of the gospels and epistles--it does not contradict the date for Jesus given in the epistles and gospels, because its not talking about the same Jesus. Instead, Talmud is claiming somebody named "Jesus" lived in Janneus's time, but the Talmud isn't saying anything at all about the Jesus of the gospels and epistles, because it's talking about a completely different guy.

2. The Talmudic Jesus is the same person as the Gospel and epistle Jesus. They are both talking about the same guy, but they are making contradictory claims about him: one of them says that Jesus lived in Janneus's time, the other saiid that *the same Jesus* lived in Pilate's time.

or something else entirely? Because in either case 1 or case 2 above, nowhere is there a claim that ANY Jesus doesn't exist!

[Giuseppe]

Because in either case 1 or case 2 above, nowhere is there a claim that ANY Jesus doesn't exist!

it seems to me that you don't like to deal with the logical implication of a Janneus's Jesus.
Assume it. The implication is that the texts (i.e. epistles) preceding the first gospel were referred to that Janneus' Jesus. While the first gospel talked about a Jesus under Pilate. Are they the same Jesus? No. Therefore the definition of minimal historicity given by Carrier is broken: the authors of the epistles meant a Jesus lived under Janneus, while the author of the first gospel meant a Jesus lived under Pilate.

Is it more clear now?

[RandyHelzerman]

Because in either case 1 or case 2 above, nowhere is there a claim that ANY Jesus doesn't exist!

Are they the same Jesus? no.

Well, then the Talmud is talking about a completely different person. It not saying anything at all about the Jesus of the epistles and letters.

[Giuseppe]

Because in either case 1 or case 2 above, nowhere is there a claim that ANY Jesus doesn't exist!

Are they the same Jesus? no.

Well, then the Talmud is talking about a completely different person. It not saying anything at all about the Jesus of the epistles and letters.

You continue to ignore the implication of an identity between the pre-Gospel Jesus and the Talmudic Jesus. The next question then is: do you accept the definition of minimal historicity given by Carrier?

It doesn't seem to me that when Abraham ibn Daud (d. 1180 CE) wrote that the Christians "argue this point" (i.e. the dating under Pilate) "so vehemently in order to prove that the Temple and the kingdom of Israel endured for but a short while after his crucifixion" he is talking about something of different from the Gospel tradition as the dating argued by the Christians.

[RandyHelzerman]

You continue to ignore the implication of an identity between the pre-Gospel Jesus and the Talmudic Jesus. The next question then is: do you accept the definition of minimal historicity given by Carrier?

I didn't ignore it -- you just said they were not the same person?

Forget Carrrier for a minute, simple logic says that exactly one of the following two sentences is true:

1. The Talmud and the Gospels are referring to *the same* Jesus
2. The Talmud and the Gospes are not referring to *the same* Jesus

It doesn't matter what Carrier says, one of those two sentences has to be true, and one has to be false.

Either way, the Talmud is asserting the existent of someone--it is not denying the existence of anybody.

[Giuseppe]

Forget Carrrier for a minute

in a discussion on the historicity of Jesus, you are inviting me to ignore the author of the book 'On the historicity of Jesus'.

I go to memory, but in a note of this book, Carrier says that Jesus could be considered as lived on the earth in the remote past, and still this counts as mythicism.

[Giuseppe]

Either way, the Talmud is asserting the existent of someone--it is not denying the existence of anybody.

But Abraham ibn Daud (d. 1180 CE) is using the Talmud to deny the existence of Jesus lived under Pilate.