better critiques of mythicism than by Tim O'Neill

[dbz]

It is possible that Justin’s παντὸς πατέρα (every father) implies the same concept as Paul’s πατὴρ πάντων (father of all) i.e. the Greek view of a transcendent-god as the cosmic father of all.

[Leucius Charinus]

... I'd say the NT authors, collators and editors sought to portray their 'Iesous' the messiah as the ultimate, superior saviour-messiah hero

Well said. Dennis MacDonald says the same thing in his various mimetic treatments of the NT authors modelling their 'Iesous'

[the] messiah on the Homeric epics and Athenian tragedies. Jesus is designed as a more superior hero than either Odysseus or Dionysus ... the ultimate, superior saviour-messiah hero mission is raised[/elevated] from saving the Jewish nation to saving all the nations of the world, to which 'the gospel' was to be preached.

Exactly.

But MacDonald's propositions are only part of the story : the NT Jesus is a not just a grab-bag of the Homerics, He assumed aspects of accounts of concepts of Caesar Augustus,

Yes I completely agree about the "grab bag" motif. In the case of Caesar Augustus in that grab bag the NT authors must have been absolutely aware of the existence of his gospel (εὐαγγέλιον, evangelion, "good news") as attested in the Calendar Inscription of Priene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_ ... _of_Priene

Stuff was cobbled together from many different sources in the manner proscribed by Plato should someone wish to create a brand new national history for a new colony. Gmirkin goes into this aspect with respect to the creation of the Hebrew Bible.

Julius Caesar, Egyptian gods, etc, AND other characters in the NT were created from other characters popular at the time they were first conceived — the 2nd century CE — such as those in the works of Josephus; accounts of Simon [Magus], and possibly Simeon ben Gamliel, Simeon ben Hillel, and other Sim[e]ons; and others, including Thomas, etc.

I remain unconvinced that we must dismiss some of the material from the 3rd century on the basis of the historical and chronological authority of the Ante Nicene Fathers. In the 3rd century we find an historical figure that is extremely congruent with the combination of Jesus and Paul in the NT story. This figure is Mani.

* a holy man of great renown who composed a "Gospel"
* who sent out apostles into the world to spread the news
* who had apostles that founded churches in the Roman empire
* who wrote epistles to his apostles
* who along with his apostles was persecuted by the (Persian) state monotheism.
* who was executed (in some sources crucified) by authorities in the capital.
* who's followers were persecuted by the Roman emperor Diocletian.
* who's churches and writings were burnt.

It should be stressed that all the above "history" of Mani was contemporary fresh news that circulated through the Roman empire - and the mind of Eusebius - in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. My point here is to highlight that the 'grab bag" may not necessarily be restricted to a period which ended in the 2nd century on the basis of the "evidence" we have in our possession by way of the "Fathers". The investigation of the chronology of the history of early Christianity has been hobbled by the "Fathers" since the beginning. In conclusion I suggest that we should keep an open mind on these traditionally imposed chronological limits.

Hence 'Simon Peter,' Kephas/Peter, Saul/Paul, etc.

I view these duplicate names to be indicative of a obscurational agenda - one which has been purposefully designed in order to cloud many identities in measures of doubt.