Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the earliest Christians understood 'Jesus' to be 'imaginary' rather than a 'myth' or 'mythical.' I hope to promote this terminology in place of 'mythicism' which I think is an unfortunate choice on the part of proponents. Why do I think 'imaginary' is preferable?

1. I think that the origin of the nomen sacrum we take to mean 'Jesus' is/was 'Man.' I think Justin, Marcion and Irenaeus can be rallied in support of this proposition.
2. the angel/god Man was well established not only among the earliest Jews and Samaritans but specifically the only Greek speeaking Jews we know of - Josephus and Philo.
3. In Josephus's case he says quite explicitly and on several occasions that 'Man' was a phantasma an imaginary or mental representation.
4. In Philo's case he says that the almight god made himself visible to humans by making his lower powers including Man means of 'imagination' phantasia.
5. I think that when scholars confirm that Christianity was a development of the religious traditions of Greek speaking Jews like Josephus and Philo we can draw a straight line between what Josephus and Philo say about 'Man' being an imaginary representation or him being made manifest to human beings on the part of God by 'imagination' and confirm an 'end product' which is compatible with 'mythicism' (albeit without all the atheist swagger than many of us find annoying and distracting).

I will try to lay out the case over the coming weeks.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

First step. Defining or contextualizing the terminology (phantasia, phantasma) used by Philo and Josephus https://www.jstor.org/stable/4543285

Marcion describes his 'Jesus' (Man) as a phantasma the same terminology as Josephus because they are one and the same being. In other words, 'Jesus' is was seen by Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, the Israelites, Joshua and the disciples as a 'mental representation' not as a being with physical flesh.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by GakuseiDon »

Perhaps the word "phantasma" might be better than "imaginary". Seeing an imaginary person is a hallucination. Hallucinations don't have will or sentience. If Paul saw Jesus in a hallucination, then that Jesus is imaginary. But if early Christians thought the disciples saw a phantasm with its own will and sentience, then from their perspective the phantasm is hardly imaginary.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:42 am I think the earliest Christians understood 'Jesus' to be 'imaginary' rather than a 'myth' or 'mythical.' I hope to promote this terminology in place of 'mythicism' which I think is an unfortunate choice on the part of proponents.
The ancients differentiated three types of exposition: history, myth AND fiction. How does 'imaginary' differ from 'fictional"? This probably involves the intent of the authors. Or are you using "imaginary" as a euphemism for "fictional"?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

The advantage that my explanation would have is that we would have a 'control group.' It wouldn't be a bunch of modern white men essentially projecting their own constructs into antiquity. We'd have Jews - Greek speaking Jews - the only window we've ever had for the origin of Christianity essentially saying we (Jews) understand God to operate in the realm of imagination. We'd have the authoritative - indeed THE ONLY - exegesis of the Pentateuch by ancient Greek speaking Jews saying THIS is how Man (= 'Jesus' in our barbaric language and terminology) was apprehended in the past (i.e. when Abraham was dining, when Isaac was in the field, when Jacob was wrestling and saw the heavenly ladder, when Joseph was in the field seeing the Man, having dreams, manifesting the Man to his brothers, Moses before the burning bush and at Sinai, Joshua at Jericho etc). Given that the Church Fathers themselves instruct us to understand 'Jesus' in this manner/as this (m)an THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO UNDERSTAND HIM which is based on established tradition. The 'historical Jesus' especially in the universities are essentially 'making stuff up' as they go along, arbitratily assigning a 'human value' to 'Jesus' when he was always understood to 'appear' as a 'mental representation.' He never had flesh, he never had 'matter' of any kind. He was only 'thought' to have them because of God manipulating our consciousness.

They can't use the 'Jewish-Christian' argument against this understanding because we would have the authority of the 'Jewish precedent' to Christianity on our side. They'd have to make appeals to the pagan world or 'common sense.' We'd have Philo and Josephus with us and against them.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

Perhaps the word "phantasma" might be better than "imaginary".
Since the Church Fathers used the word in the way I am describing it would be tactically useful to keep the terminology the same as Patristic sources weaponized phantasia and phantasma against Marcionites. Also Irenaeus's struggles to develop the "Virgin Birth" of Man (in Against Heresies Book 3) in the way historicists pretend the birth from Mary 'proves' the historical reality of Jesus. He sees this not as an 'ordinary' birth but something remarkable 'one of a kind.' Yes Irenaeus in particular acknowledges that he had 'flesh.' But the Man isn't an ordinary man. He's god/angel Man made flesh. The point is that our earliest sources aren't useful for historicism. It's quite surprising.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

The characters in Irenaeus's understanding:

1. the god/angel Man (Father)
2. a woman (Mary)
3. a child god/angel Man (Son)

who is born to have God Man have flesh. 1 and 3 are one and the same person.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by GakuseiDon »

The usage of "phantasma" (G536 in Strong's) in the NT suggests something something 'real' (i.e. objective, outside the viewer) is meant rather than some inner psychological function:

Mat 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit G5326 and they cried out for fear.

Mar 6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit G5326 and cried out:


I guess I'd have to see how Philo and Josephus use "phantasma" and "phantasia" in context to understand what you mean.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

I produced 170 of 188 references in Philo and all of Josephus. Just use the search function at this discussion board.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

Interesting example. Thanks.
Post Reply