Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
Yes most religions are built this way. Most 'cults.' But not all. The question is whether Christianity is of one or the other type. We have to keep an open mind. There is no actual evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are several layers to the problem, as I've noted many times in many different ways:
1. the name of the god of Christianity is a nomen sacrum not an 'ordinary' name. This is curious. Why would a personal name be abbreviated in a holy text? Not true for Judaism.
2. the holiest text of Christianity was edited and re-edited by people with discernable motivations. Which is the original text? Which is/are the texts free of later corruptions? Not clear.
3. our earliest historical source for Christianity Justin seems to take for granted that the nomen sacrum can mean 'man' or 'Jesus' and that the god with the nomen sacrum (the god of Christianity) was the god who conversed with the Patriarchs.
I don't see this situation as open and shut in favor of a historical Jesus as you do. It's easier to assume a historical individual who simply got 'exaggerated' (to use the Arabic terminology used to described those who claimed that the bodily excretions of Muhammad had divine characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghulat). But easy isn't always correct.
There are several layers to the problem, as I've noted many times in many different ways:
1. the name of the god of Christianity is a nomen sacrum not an 'ordinary' name. This is curious. Why would a personal name be abbreviated in a holy text? Not true for Judaism.
2. the holiest text of Christianity was edited and re-edited by people with discernable motivations. Which is the original text? Which is/are the texts free of later corruptions? Not clear.
3. our earliest historical source for Christianity Justin seems to take for granted that the nomen sacrum can mean 'man' or 'Jesus' and that the god with the nomen sacrum (the god of Christianity) was the god who conversed with the Patriarchs.
I don't see this situation as open and shut in favor of a historical Jesus as you do. It's easier to assume a historical individual who simply got 'exaggerated' (to use the Arabic terminology used to described those who claimed that the bodily excretions of Muhammad had divine characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghulat). But easy isn't always correct.
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
But one was ---Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:17 am
A king of the Jews is not supposed to be crucified ...
… they find Saul and … they behead him, and they strip him of his weapons, and they send into the land of the Philistines round about, announcing good news (ευαγγελιζόμενοι) to their idols, and to their people … And his body they fastened down (κατέπηξαν) on the wall in Beth-sham … And all the men of power rose up. And they went the entire night, and took the body of Saul … from the wall in Beth-sham … incinerated them … and they entombed them … (1 Samuel 31:8-13, LXX)
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
to robert j,
But Saul did reign.
But Saul did reign.
Cordially, BernardA king of the Jews is not supposed to be crucified, more so when he did not even reign before his execution.
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
Saul is still an exception to your entire phrase.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
There is evidence of the existence of Jesus in Tacitus' annals and Josephus small TF (James, the brother of Jesus called Christ). Even if Mythicists have been trying very hard to bring doubts about their authenticity, I see no reason to cancel them.There is no actual evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth beyond a reasonable doubt.
I spent a lot of effort in order to detect editing and interpolations in the Pauline epistles, the gospels, Hebrews, etc. (even in ascension of Isaiah). There are a lot of them! And I sorted them out with multiple reasons for each. It's all over my website.2. the holiest text of Christianity was edited and re-edited by people with discernable motivations. Which is the original text? Which is/are the texts free of later corruptions? Not clear.
For 1. & 3., I would think that generally, in view of the textual context of the nomen sacrum, "Jesus" and not "man" is meant.
Cordially, Bernard
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
But this or these is/are hardly incontrovertible evidence. People doubted the existence of Pilate before they found an inscription with his name on it. On the other hand, Commodus likely believed that Herakles was a historical figure. Republicans today believe in child molestation circles that run governments. Doesn't mean that any of these things are true.There is evidence of the existence of Jesus in Tacitus' annals and Josephus small TF
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
Yes and this effort has been questioned. Are there problems which are by their very nature insoluble? Is it a reasonable supposition that EVERY corruption, every correction, every change was somehow recorded by some ancient notary somewhere? Unlikely. Very unlikely. Who is this 'honest scribe' from antiquity who 'faithfully' recorded the corruptions perpetrated by HIS tradition on earlier Christianity? It just seems silly. Vanity suppose that the world was arranged in such a way that only you can solve it. Perhaps not only vain, madness.I spent a lot of effort in order to detect editing and interpolations in the Pauline epistles, the gospels, Hebrews, etc.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
But everything, as Andrew Weil used to say about psychedelics, comes down to set and setting (I haven't thought about Weil in 20 years). In this case, what do you have in the Gospel of Mark - a 'man.' There is no biography. There's no history in this supposedly historical biography. A 'man' just shows up. I am not arguing on behalf of the correctness of this reading but Justin does include it as one reading of the nomen sacrum. Why? Why would someone include 'man' as an accepted reading of IC? The point I go back to is - EITHER understanding of this protagonist works - viz. 'the god' and 'the man' (or in this case 'the god man' or the man Jesus). I don't pretend to know which came first. But arguments can be made for either side. You act as if the gospel has to be biography. I am not sure whether it is an ancient biography twisted into a something mysterious or a mystery text developed from a biography. It's hard to know.I would think that generally, in view of the textual context of the nomen sacrum, "Jesus" and not "man" is meant.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
to Secret Alias,
So some people doubted Pilate existed (even if Josephus and Philo of Alexandria and Tacitus named him)! That's extreme skepticism and rather unfounded.
And do you think Tacitus & Josephus believed Jesus existed, just like Commodus believed about Herakles. Herakles comes with many extraordinary stuff, but the Tacitus & Josephus very short accounts on Christus/Jesus do not (and with no outrageous stories as allegedly from these republicans). Could Tacitus & Josephus be wrong about the existence of Christus/Jesus? I would not think so.
There are other ways to detect interpolations and editing, without depending on your honest scribe.
Here is one example: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
Complex problems, in the technical and scientific fields, likely got the same reaction from others "on the fence": It's vain and madness trying to solve them. But most of these problems got solved through dedication, lot of times, and above all, hard work.
And your case about the nomen sacrum IC is very problematic according to viewtopic.php?t=1405&start=70
Cordially, Bernard
I don't see the relevance of these observations, regarding Tacitus' Annals and Josephus' accounts (BTW, Josephus was a young priest in Jerusalem when James was judged and likely executed).But this or these is/are hardly incontrovertible evidence. People doubted the existence of Pilate before they found an inscription with his name on it. On the other hand, Commodus likely believed that Herakles was a historical figure. Republicans today believe in child molestation circles that run governments. Doesn't mean that any of these things are true.
So some people doubted Pilate existed (even if Josephus and Philo of Alexandria and Tacitus named him)! That's extreme skepticism and rather unfounded.
And do you think Tacitus & Josephus believed Jesus existed, just like Commodus believed about Herakles. Herakles comes with many extraordinary stuff, but the Tacitus & Josephus very short accounts on Christus/Jesus do not (and with no outrageous stories as allegedly from these republicans). Could Tacitus & Josephus be wrong about the existence of Christus/Jesus? I would not think so.
Just because it is questioned, that does not mean my effort gave me wrong results. In this field, everything is questioned. So what's the big deal?Yes and this effort has been questioned. Are there problems which are by their very nature insoluble? Is it a reasonable supposition that EVERY corruption, every correction, every change was somehow recorded by some ancient notary somewhere? Unlikely. Very unlikely. Who is this 'honest scribe' from antiquity who 'faithfully' recorded the corruptions perpetrated by HIS tradition on earlier Christianity? It just seems silly. Vanity suppose that the world was arranged in such a way that only you can solve it. Perhaps not only vain, madness.
There are other ways to detect interpolations and editing, without depending on your honest scribe.
Here is one example: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
Complex problems, in the technical and scientific fields, likely got the same reaction from others "on the fence": It's vain and madness trying to solve them. But most of these problems got solved through dedication, lot of times, and above all, hard work.
I do not act as if the Mark's gospel has to be biography.But everything, as Andrew Weil used to say about psychedelics, comes down to set and setting (I haven't thought about Weil in 20 years). In this case, what do you have in the Gospel of Mark - a 'man.' There is no biography. There's no history in this supposedly historical biography. A 'man' just shows up. I am not arguing on behalf of the correctness of this reading but Justin does include it as one reading of the nomen sacrum. Why? Why would someone include 'man' as an accepted reading of IC? The point I go back to is - EITHER understanding of this protagonist works - viz. 'the god' and 'the man' (or in this case 'the god man' or the man Jesus). I don't pretend to know which came first. But arguments can be made for either side. You act as if the gospel has to be biography. I am not sure whether it is an ancient biography twisted into a something mysterious or a mystery text developed from a biography. It's hard to know.
And your case about the nomen sacrum IC is very problematic according to viewtopic.php?t=1405&start=70
Cordially, Bernard
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Evidence Christianity started as mythicist
But why doesn't Justin simply say IC = Jesus? Why isn't someone living a century after the crucifixion as sure about Jesus as we are almost 2000 years later? Do we know more than Justin?