Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

[GakuseiDon]

This is quite intersting:

3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.

What is underlined: Eusebius was born around 260. So, if Eusebius met Polycarp around the age of 10 it would have been about 270. If he met Polycarp when Polycarp was 100 years old, then Polycarp would have been born in 170. If Polycarp knew disciples of Jesus including John Zebedee, and these people knew Jesus before he was killed around 30, then at minimum those apostles would had to have been 140 years old, but to imply any kind of reasonable relationship they would have needed to be around 170 or 180 years old... So of course something isn't adding up here.

The "I" being referred to there is Irenaeus, not Eusebius. So the dates (sourced from Wiki) are:

Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD)
Polycarp (c. 69 – 155 AD)
Papias (c. 60 – c.130 AD)
Ignatius (died c. 108/140 AD)
The Apostle John (c. 6 AD – c. 100 AD)

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

According to Irenaeus, Polycarp was a companion of Papias, another "hearer of John", and a correspondent of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius addressed a letter to him and mentions him in his letters to the Ephesians and to the Magnesians.[10] Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians gives us some insights to the early usage of the New Testament from the quotes used within his letter.[11] Irenaeus regarded the memory of Polycarp as a link to the apostolic past...

In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a presbyter, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He writes that he had had the good fortune, when young, to know Polycarp, who was then far advanced in years.

To complete the picture:

Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165 AD)
Tatian (c. 120 – c. 180 AD)
Tertullian (c. 155 AD – c. 220 AD)

[rgprice]

@GD that makes more sense in terms of a timeline. But of course its still all nonsense. There is little question that the Gospel of John is composed of multiple layers, one of which was Gnostic and considered the Jewish God the Father of the Devil. So...

[dbz]

There is little question that the Gospel of John is composed of multiple layers, one of which was Gnostic and considered the Jewish God the Father of the Devil.

MacDonald claims that the John-prime layer is reliant on Euripides. So I assume an obvious religious synchronism with Hellenistic philosophy and religion.

Thomas stand at the very source in my theory, and is not part of any camp - his text solely is about introspection and contains deep Jungian psychology, and he rejects any and all forms of religion.
I am unsure to what extent *Ev contradicts John-prime (I like that label) and if have to dive into that as well

Chrestianity ends with Mark who turns all of it around by introducing Judaic roots. With regards to monistic features, it is not up for debate whether Mark has any other supreme being in mind but the Judaic god - and my assumption is that *Ev inherited the father from John-prime and fell back on Egyptian creation myths for the Creator of all the physical stuff, regardless of whether he spent much attention to any of that.
Chrestianity would appear to extend the line of thought of Thomas who is only concerned with the self, not the physical world or creation

• gMark is Pauline, thus is aware of the Unter/Uber Torah issues of Paul. But gMark is not an encyclopedic playbook of Paul's theology/dogma.

[davidmartin]

gMark is Pauline, thus is aware of the Unter/Uber Torah issues of Paul. But gMark is not an encyclopedic playbook of Paul's theology/dogma.[/list]

heh this is how the "poor fit" the gospels have with Pauline theology gets waved away
i'm open to an 'awareness' of things pauline but these documents are not really pauline in any meaningful way
where's "Christ", the atonement, and, ahem, where's freaking Paul? he's not even a disciple
then you have paul saying Jesus becomes Christ at his resurrection and the gospels at his baptism. there's major differences

and what's the reason for this, folk have decided Paul has to be first then force the gospels to fit into this theory, but they don't
i think all these paul priority theories have major unanswerable problems, but if he's secondary those problems disappear, barking up the wrong tree
forget Paul, he's what he says he is himself "the last apostle", an offshoot, a reviser... secondary / late. the thing existed before him and the few documents prior found their way into the gospels and surprise surprise they are not very pauline, as expected, cause he wasn't primary. he is merely another source of information it never started with him

[GakuseiDon]

@GD that makes more sense in terms of a timeline. But of course its still all nonsense. There is little question that the Gospel of John is composed of multiple layers, one of which was Gnostic and considered the Jewish God the Father of the Devil. So...

Does that matter though? There is no reason that the author of the Gospel of John had to be the Apostle John.

We have a clear link from Irenaeus to Polycarp to the Apostle John. In the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the author refers to Ignatius, Paul and the other apostles:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... berts.html

Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi...

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom" of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive...

Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us]...

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles...

But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord ? "Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world ?" as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle.

Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled. The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested.

As irenaeus writes, Polycarp talked to many who had seen Christ:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... book3.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time...

It could all be made up of course. Every early sect seems to have had their own history taking them back to the apostles. Proto-orthodoxy would have been the same. Whatever the origin, I'll note there is no mention of Pilate, Mary, Jerusalem, Galilee, any other internal historical marker (other than derived from external sources). No acts or teachings of Jesus are given. When Jesus is described, it is as quotes from written sources:

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, "who bore our sins in His own body on the tree," "who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer for His name's sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example s in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case.

[dbz]

heh this is how the "poor fit" the gospels have with Pauline theology gets waved away
i'm open to an 'awareness' of things pauline but these documents are not really pauline in any meaningful way
where's "Christ", the atonement, and, ahem, where's freaking Paul? he's not even a disciple
then you have paul saying Jesus becomes Christ at his resurrection and the gospels at his baptism. there's major differences

A few issues:

#1) We cannot claim to know why any writer made certain choices. There are many aspects of Pauline teaching. Even today, almost any given preacher will spin you a different version and emphasize different points.

#2) The orthodox Pauline letters we have today are not original. To what extent are teachings that seem to be central to the letters as we have them products of orthodox revision? Of course the writer of Mark would not have included Pauline statements that weren't in his version of the letters.

Another seemingly important aspect of Pauline teaching is opposition to circumcision. But this is never mentioned in Mark. After having wrestled with this for a while, I now consider the possibility that all such teaching is later interpolation and wasn't a part of the original Pauline letters.

gMark was not intended as an encyclopedic recapitulation of every point made by Paul. Rather every iota of gMark (as R.G.Price opines) implies why the Temple cult perished do to ignorance or outright antipathy towards certain selected talking points made by Paul.

• Perhaps the author of gMark did not savvy Paul's antinomian viewpoint or consider it worth his time to address.
• Perhaps Paul was a con artist and the author of gMark took only what worked for his gospel message and abandoned the rest.
• A late date for the composition of gMark—when most/all new IS XS devotees of the gMark demographic—were already ignorant of even the basics per the debate of being Torah law observant and other Pauline issues, would explain much.

[T]he trend now seems clear that the Gospels did indeed creatively build their stories out of Paul, not the other way around . . . I surveyed the growing scholarship establishing this in Mark’s Use of Paul’s Epistles. As I document there, eight studies now confirm this, most of them published after I wrote OHJ. And now I’ve found this conclusion affirmed again in the recent study of John-Christian Eurell, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: Reconsidering the Relationship Between Paul and the Synoptics,” Journal of Early Christian History 12 (2022).

---

--Carrier (30 August 2023). "Some Controversial Ideas That Now Have Wide Scholarly Support". Richard Carrier Blogs.

[GakuseiDon]

then you have paul saying Jesus becomes Christ at his resurrection and the gospels at his baptism. there's major differences

Actually, Paul writes that Jesus became the Son of God at the resurrection, not Christ:

Rom 1
[1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
[2] (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
[4] And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus was "Christ" because he was descended from David (ignoring things like Cosmic Sperm Banks for now). He was declared Son of God through the resurrection.

God sent forth his Son, made from a woman (ignoring things like analogies and manufacture from Cosmic Sperm Banks for now), fulfilling Scriptures as being a descendant of David and so "evidence" towards him being Christ. As Jesus becomes a Son and heir of God, then we can become adopted as Sons of God. When that happens, God sends the Spirit of the Son into our hearts, and we become heirs of God as well.

There is an obvious chiasmic structure: (1) Jesus is physical heir of God so Son, we are servants so not Sons; (2) we are adopted as Sons, so no longer servants but heirs of God.

Gal.4
[1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
[2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
[3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Paul's Jesus was born as a man but then appointed Son of God at the resurrection. (Again, ignoring Cosmic Sperm Bank stuff for now)

Mark's Jesus was born a man but appointed Son of God at his baptism.

Matthew and Luke's Jesus was born of a virgin and was Son of God from birth.

John's Jesus was a pre-existing being.

We see a steady progression there for the timing of becoming "Son of God". But they were all "Christ" due to being the seed of David.

[Peter Kirby]

Mark's Jesus

But they were all "Christ" due to being the seed of David.

I'm not so sure (Mark 12:35).

[GakuseiDon]

Mark's Jesus

But they were all "Christ" due to being the seed of David.

I'm not so sure (Mark 12:35).

I can't say I'm across this I'm afraid. I see it as meaning "David's descendant will be greater than just a king like David", but if there is a better answer I'd like to understand it.

[davidmartin]

GD i completely agree with you there's a chiasmic structure to the epistle teaching
its hard not to see the resurrection as the ritual equivalent of 'being saved' so when humans 'are saved' that's a re-enactment of the resurrection
that would tend to de-value the human Jesus... as a type of the unsaved human, but i don't think the epistles have a problem with that
but who might, anyone venerating a human Jesus as a teacher or prophet!

the progression i also agree is evident but the thing is, John's making Jesus pre-existent is very likely to be a gloss over pre-existent wisdom
the actual Jesus in John spends his time saying he is a prophet and a servant - for me, that's the earliest layer
Paul comes along with teaching that mythologises the earthly Jesus and he runs into opposition from the former adherents of the teacher/prophet (and he never stops complaining about it).

Carrier et al might have come up with an interesting idea here but it's hardly a slam dunk that solves all the problems, the biggest is one is the epistles themselves appear to show a guy going round introducing a new concept that no-one's heard before and running into problems with predecessors in the movement. then we have the gospels being different. it's very logical to think that the difference is because the gospels are something to do with these predecessors. look at Romans. he tries to butter up the hearers over their faith but its clear 'his gospel' requires explanation and belief in, precisely because it's new and they haven't heard it before. Maybe these guys had some gospels or whatever, who knows but we are told by Carrier, nothing to see here everything is based on Paul. It doesn't make much sense