The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

Note that I did not say it was okay to do anything of the sort. I said that you could not stop it from happening there any more than we can stop you from doing it here. I was merely suggesting that we try to stick to the thread topic as much as possible. I realize that I myself am guilty of promoting thread drift all the time. It's hard not to wander off topic, but we should try to keep the discussion within bounds of relevance.

Well, with this generous acknowledgement, I'll feel confident in starting my thread.

 

[dbz]

Oder's viewpoint on gMark is very cogent.

• Danila Oder, "Mark’s Gospel: A Performed Play in Rome 306 [CE]", ap. Loftus, John W.; Price, R. M. (2021). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. Ockham Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-83919-159-6.

• "About the Contributors to the Book, 'Varieties of Jesus Mythicism'". Debunking Christianity.

Danila Oder is an independent scholar. She received a BA in history from the University of Chicago and studied at Spertus College of Judaica. She has studied playwriting and worked as an actor. In 2019, she published The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text, www.thetwogospelsofmark.com.

• Godfrey, Neil (5 March 2020). "The Gospel of Mark as a Dramatic Performance". Vridar.

Much of what Danila Oder discusses must necessarily be hypothetical but it is nonetheless tightly argued and does oblige one to consider possibilities that are currently outside the standard view. If we are serious about the idea of expanding our horizons with interdisciplinary studies, even those of ancient theatre, there is much that is thought-provoking here.

Oder, Danila. The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text. United States: Domus Press, 2019.

Per MacDonald 2014, p. 11. "The Markan Evangelist not only translates the joint nickname [Boanerges] but also makes a point that it was Jesus who created it . . . Its significance for Mark lies in his translation “Sons of Thunder.” Earlier the Evangelist introduced James and John as fishermen who abandoned their father’s boat. If one were to look for an analogy to them in classical Greek literature, one set of brothers should instantly come to mind: Castor and Polydeuces, the twin sons . . . known as the Dioscuri, “Sons-of-Zeus.” Zeus, of course, was the god of thunder and lightning, and the Dioscuri were sailors; they were among the Argonauts who accompanied Jason to retrieve the golden fleece. [In every instance but one they speak in unison, e.g. the request to sit at the glorified Jesus’ right and left hand]."

Danila Oder (23 July 2021). "What is the meaning of "Boanerges"?". The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text.

Here, I offer a new explanation for the term. I assume as baseline the scenario that I presented in my book, The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text: Mark wrote a play that was performed, privately. The play was produced by the congregation’s patron/benefactor, Flavia Domitilla, in 90-95 CE. The attendees included Flavia (a niece of the current emperor, Domitian) and her family, and Mark’s congregation. As was usual at the time, the play was performed only once. But Mark preserved the performance in a separately written narrative, which is the (original of the) Gospel of Mark we have now. This narrative was written in the literary style of the Septuagint. The narrative remained in the congregation’s library as evidence of Flavia’s patronage, but was lightly used, if at all, until Luke (I think first) or Matthew made their own version of it.

A para-Aramaic meaning of Boanerges is plausible, because Mark creates at least one other para-Aramaic name: Arimathea.

As Meier points out, the name doesn’t make sense within Mark’s story. I add that it also doesn’t make sense within a performed play. James and John are not pretentious or angry or thunderous; they barely speak dialogue, and even when they dispute who is the greatest (9:34) it is among themselves, i.e., silently; the audience learn what they have been ‘disputing’ about from Jesus’s speech (9:35) “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all.”

I suspect that “Boanerges” was a topical reference in Mark’s world that he expected his readers to recognize. In support of topicality, I note that Matthew and Luke both omit it.

Now to my proposal. Recall the scenario I propose: Mark writes, directs and (I think) stars in a play for the emperor’s niece, the mother of future emperors. Mark is working for the aristocracy. He would use the best actors available. Famous actors would add to the luster of the occasion.

In my book, I speculate that Mark does use a well-known comic actor to play the demoniac of Gerasa. (See the book for my justification.) If this is true, Mark used other well-known actors for other roles in the play. The roles of James and John are relatively large—they are onstage for most of the play (they exit during the arrest scene). So even though it looks like these actors have very little dialogue, that may be incorrect. (Mark’s narrative sometimes summarizes dialogue that was spoken onstage.) I can say that the James and John actors react to Jesus throughout the play. Their physical acting is important: they characterize Jesus through their reactions, and they keep the audience interested.

If the roles of James and John are played by well-known actors, maybe the term “Boanerges” was a distortion of their stage name (a duo act?), or their typical stage roles. “Sons of thunder” makes sense as a description of a mime role similar to that of the comedy role of the miles gloriosus, the braggart soldier.

If these actors were well-known mime actors, then the audience recognized them when they saw them onstage. There was no need for the Jesus actor to speak aloud a nickname that had no significance or implications in the world of the play. In fact, the name “Boanerges” would cause those audience members who knew some Aramaic to laugh, but would perplex those audience members who spoke only Greek and Latin. So I think that the name “Boanerges” was not spoken in the play. It was used only in Mark’s narrative text. He expected the readers of his text, who at first would be only in Rome, to understand the meaning of “Boanerges,” at least in the short term.

Did Mark write the term “Boanerges,” and explain it, or was it added by an editor? I don’t see any reason for an editor to add it. It doesn’t have any religious significance. It isn’t necessary to make James and John look inferior; they already don’t understand Jesus (they are not foolish but underinformed—see my book). Whereas, as I said above, Mark wrote at least one other para-Aramaic character name. And Mark had good reason to preserve a pointer to the famous actors who had acted in his play. And the topical nature of the term explains why Matthew and Luke don’t use it.

Yes, this is all extremely speculative. But if you accept my scenario, it’s only one step away.

N.B. Greek names of the disciples per Mk. 3:13-19[20]

Name (in order of presentation)	Mentions by name (3:20–16:8)	Base Name	Modifier	Cognomen	Cognomen given by Jesus	"Church Pillars" per Paul c. 53 CE (Galatians 2:9)[21][22]
Simon Peter	~20[23][24][25]	Símōnos Σίμωνος			Pétros Πέτρος	Kēphâs Κηφᾶς [note 1]
Jacob/James (son of Zebedee)	~10[26]	Iákōbos Ἰάκωβος	ton tou Zebedaiou τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου		Boanergés Βοανεργές	Iakōbos Ἰάκωβος
John (brother of Jacob/James)	~10[27]	Iōánnēs Ἰωάννης	ton adelphon tou Iakōbou τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου		Boanergés Βοανεργές	Iōannēs Ἰωάννης

 

[dbz]

Jarhyn said: "There was almost certainly a heavy intersection between Jewish converts from earlier mysticism to the new cult."

Jarhyn said: "[T]he nature and structure of beliefs common in Jewish mysticism is an oft-overlooked aspect of that context in interpreting it in a contemporary way."

• Video lecture #18 Middle and Neo-Platonism by Arthur F. Holmes (2015) per “A History of Philosophy”. YouTube. Wheaton College, Illinois.

Question: Which is the original version of Mark 3:15 ? Textus Receptus OR Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf:

Textus Receptus vs. Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf​

• Textus Receptus: And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils —και εχειν εξουσιαν θεραπευειν τας νοσους και εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια[2]
• Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf: And to have authority [to heal sicknesses, and] to drive out the demons —καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια·

Middle Platonic thought:

• "Middle Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• "Middle Platonism -- a few basics". Vridar.
• "Ancient beliefs about heavenly realms, demons and the end of the world". Vridar.
• "Demons 101 - Early Christianity's Middle Platonic Background". Vridar.
• "Demonology: the basics of Middle Platonic beliefs as a background to early Christianity". Vridar.

N.B. another possible forgery per "Mark 13:14 is not by Mark". The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text. 6 June 2020.

In summary, there are five good reasons to think that Mark 13:14 was not written by Mark:​

1. Mark’s Jesus is not concerned about the purity of the Temple. He tries to disrupt its activities, and the chief priests are his main opponents.
2. When Mark wrote in the 90s CE, the emperor, Domitian, was the brother of Titus, the destroyer of the Temple. It would not be prudent for Mark to imply that the destruction of the Temple (by Titus’s men) had resulted in an “abomination”!
3. A playwright does not tell the audience “let the reader understand.” A play must create and exist in its own world.
4. There is no dramatic payoff for the prediction within the world of the play: it predicts nothing.
5. The prediction in Mark 13:14 is irrelevant to the disciples, who are Jesus’s audience in the world of the play.

Addendum: Mark 13:14 introduces Mark 13:15-20. If Mark 13:14 is not original, Mark 13:15-20 is also not original.

​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

GMark always did make sense as a closet drama.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn said: "There was almost certainly a heavy intersection between Jewish converts from earlier mysticism to the new cult."

Jarhyn said: "[T]he nature and structure of beliefs common in Jewish mysticism is an oft-overlooked aspect of that context in interpreting it in a contemporary way."

• Video lecture #18 Middle and Neo-Platonism by Arthur F. Holmes (2015) per “A History of Philosophy”. YouTube. Wheaton College, Illinois.

Question: Which is the original version of Mark 3:15 ? Textus Receptus OR Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf:

Textus Receptus vs. Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf​

• Textus Receptus: And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils —και εχειν εξουσιαν θεραπευειν τας νοσους και εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια[2]
• Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf: And to have authority [to heal sicknesses, and] to drive out the demons —καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια·

Middle Platonic thought:

• "Middle Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• "Middle Platonism -- a few basics". Vridar.
• "Ancient beliefs about heavenly realms, demons and the end of the world". Vridar.
• "Demons 101 - Early Christianity's Middle Platonic Background". Vridar.
• "Demonology: the basics of Middle Platonic beliefs as a background to early Christianity". Vridar.

N.B. another possible forgery per "Mark 13:14 is not by Mark". The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text. 6 June 2020.

In summary, there are five good reasons to think that Mark 13:14 was not written by Mark:​

1. Mark’s Jesus is not concerned about the purity of the Temple. He tries to disrupt its activities, and the chief priests are his main opponents.
2. When Mark wrote in the 90s CE, the emperor, Domitian, was the brother of Titus, the destroyer of the Temple. It would not be prudent for Mark to imply that the destruction of the Temple (by Titus’s men) had resulted in an “abomination”!
3. A playwright does not tell the audience “let the reader understand.” A play must create and exist in its own world.
4. There is no dramatic payoff for the prediction within the world of the play: it predicts nothing.
5. The prediction in Mark 13:14 is irrelevant to the disciples, who are Jesus’s audience in the world of the play.

Addendum: Mark 13:14 introduces Mark 13:15-20. If Mark 13:14 is not original, Mark 13:15-20 is also not original.

​

I would think it would be the W&T translation there, mostly on account of the concept of the Kabbalah being a discussion not of the body but the mind, and literally controlling what I call "the things in the oubliette of the mind".

You could call them "demons", but "internally hostile neural influences," is more accurate, if a mouthful.

Having "authority" the verbage in particular, delivers the concept in some ways of leverage over self and one's darker natures. It's literally the name I myself use for a particular cudgel in my own mind to manage such hostile neural influences.

 

[ramoss]

The true believer dwells in a perpetual state of well being and bliss. That is what religious myths can do.

For the religious belver it is not about academic debate or facts, it is about feelings. Logical arguments are irrelevant.

Well, they do say ignorance is bliss.

 

[ramoss]

It just means taking the story as a presentation of fiction that is not necessarily true but certainly points at some truth.

Reminds me of a story. A Jewish rabbi was asked if the Tankah was true. He said 'Yes,, it true, and some of it might even be historically accurate"

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

The NT is a real mixed bag. For an understanding of morals and/or human nature, I would think Aesop's Fables would be a much more meaningful text.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

The NT is a real mixed bag. For an understanding of morals and/or human nature, I would think Aesop's Fables would be a much more meaningful text.

Dr. Seuss has more to teach about human nature and morality than all the bibles ever printed put together.

 

[dbz]

"ECR Interview: Dr. Nathanael Vette". PhD Students to Follow. 6 September 2021.

My latest book, Writing with Scripture: Scripturalized Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 666; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2022), argues that Mark made use of a popular literary convention whereby new stories were fashioned out of scriptural language. Second Temple authors often modelled stories on well-known episodes in the scriptures: so you have stories of Abraham being rescued from a fiery furnace (à la Daniel 3), Judas Maccabeus besieging a city he is unable to go around (as Moses destroys Sihon) and Judith assassinating Holofernes in a tent (as Jael assassinates Sisera), to name a few. So when Mark has Jesus spend forty-days in the wilderness and call his disciples like Elijah or Herod Antipas making promises to the young girl like Ahasuerus, the scriptures are being used in the same way, as a compositional model. Scholars have tended to see great exegetical significance in Mark’s use of the scriptures—like the Psalms in the Passion Narrative—but my research suggests that sometimes the scriptures were used for no other reason than to tell a new story in familiar language. It also raises interesting questions about the historicity of episodes told in scriptural language: did scripturalization lead to the invention of non-historical episodes? My answer should equally displease radical and conservative exegetes!

C. H. Dodd asserted the earliest Christians shared oral accounts about Jesus but in order to make sense of what looked like failure on the part of Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion they were driven to interpret those memories in the light of Scripture.

The Dodd camp's viewpoint has resulted in scholarship where the emphasis has been on the growth and not on the making of the Gospel to the extent that certain data beliefs and assumptions concerning the Gospel have become so dominant that very little progress has been made in the history of interpretation of the Gospel.[2] However some scholars, following the work of Alfred Suhl,[3] have taken the intertextual production of the written Gospel seriously.[4][1] The intertextuality of the Gospel of Mark has been recognized by scholars such as Thomas L. Brodie,[5] Willem S. Vorster,[6] Dennis R. MacDonald,[7] and Bartosz Adamczewski.[8]

Midrashic production​

Philip S Alexander holds that in modern usage the term "midrash becomes simply a fancy word for 'Bible interpretation'" and therefore its usage should be discontinued.[24] Nathanael Vette also addresses the problem of definition and sides with those who believe that what is often being labelled as “midrash” is more like the Greco-Roman literary practice of “mimesis”, that is, literary imitation, or simply “a creative use of Scriptural material”.[1]

Comparison with Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha​

A justification for the comparison of the Gospel of Mark with Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha is given by Nathanael Vette,[25] following Devorah Dimant [de]'s work "Use and Interpretation of Mikra..."[26] that these writings have in common the imitation of the styles and forms of the Old Testament (OT) biblical literature and can be read as if they are attempting to imitate that biblical world. Scripture is not primarily addressed directly in order to be explicitly interpreted in these writings but acts as an underlay that helps shape narrative episodes. Vette also borrows from Dimant the terms to describe these two types of Scripture reference: expositional and compositional. Most scholarship has attended to the expositional use of Scriptures in the Gospel of Mark, seeking to explain how the Gospel can be interpreted through its Scriptural references; but Vette seeks to redress that balance by examining the compositional function of biblical texts in the Gospel.[27]

 

[Jarhyn]

"ECR Interview: Dr. Nathanael Vette". PhD Students to Follow. 6 September 2021.

My latest book, Writing with Scripture: Scripturalized Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 666; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2022), argues that Mark made use of a popular literary convention whereby new stories were fashioned out of scriptural language. Second Temple authors often modelled stories on well-known episodes in the scriptures: so you have stories of Abraham being rescued from a fiery furnace (à la Daniel 3), Judas Maccabeus besieging a city he is unable to go around (as Moses destroys Sihon) and Judith assassinating Holofernes in a tent (as Jael assassinates Sisera), to name a few. So when Mark has Jesus spend forty-days in the wilderness and call his disciples like Elijah or Herod Antipas making promises to the young girl like Ahasuerus, the scriptures are being used in the same way, as a compositional model. Scholars have tended to see great exegetical significance in Mark’s use of the scriptures—like the Psalms in the Passion Narrative—but my research suggests that sometimes the scriptures were used for no other reason than to tell a new story in familiar language. It also raises interesting questions about the historicity of episodes told in scriptural language: did scripturalization lead to the invention of non-historical episodes? My answer should equally displease radical and conservative exegetes!

C. H. Dodd asserted the earliest Christians shared oral accounts about Jesus but in order to make sense of what looked like failure on the part of Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion they were driven to interpret those memories in the light of Scripture.

The Dodd camp's viewpoint has resulted in scholarship where the emphasis has been on the growth and not on the making of the Gospel to the extent that certain data beliefs and assumptions concerning the Gospel have become so dominant that very little progress has been made in the history of interpretation of the Gospel.[2] However some scholars, following the work of Alfred Suhl,[3] have taken the intertextual production of the written Gospel seriously.[4][1] The intertextuality of the Gospel of Mark has been recognized by scholars such as Thomas L. Brodie,[5] Willem S. Vorster,[6] Dennis R. MacDonald,[7] and Bartosz Adamczewski.[8]

Midrashic production​

Philip S Alexander holds that in modern usage the term "midrash becomes simply a fancy word for 'Bible interpretation'" and therefore its usage should be discontinued.[24] Nathanael Vette also addresses the problem of definition and sides with those who believe that what is often being labelled as “midrash” is more like the Greco-Roman literary practice of “mimesis”, that is, literary imitation, or simply “a creative use of Scriptural material”.[1]

Comparison with Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha​

A justification for the comparison of the Gospel of Mark with Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha is given by Nathanael Vette,[25] following Devorah Dimant [de]'s work "Use and Interpretation of Mikra..."[26] that these writings have in common the imitation of the styles and forms of the Old Testament (OT) biblical literature and can be read as if they are attempting to imitate that biblical world. Scripture is not primarily addressed directly in order to be explicitly interpreted in these writings but acts as an underlay that helps shape narrative episodes. Vette also borrows from Dimant the terms to describe these two types of Scripture reference: expositional and compositional. Most scholarship has attended to the expositional use of Scriptures in the Gospel of Mark, seeking to explain how the Gospel can be interpreted through its Scriptural references; but Vette seeks to redress that balance by examining the compositional function of biblical texts in the Gospel.[27]

So, this opens a third avenue insofar as there is a Jewish person referenced in the Rabbinical lore, a son of an unfaithful mother Miriam ~136ce, right when the gospels seemed to surface (thanks @lpetrich) though this may be false. Even so, this offers a rather interesting interpretation insofar as perhaps some Roman after hearing about the history of crazy Jewish Jesuses decided to write about a contemporary instance.

There would have already been a memory of cults such as the Crestus stuff, and then they just write a story about that guy.

Of course, it's all just silly speculation we're never really going to resolve the question of which crazy Jesus, if any, the author wrote about.

What is certain is that many various Jesus figures were born, lived, and died, and stayed in the ground thereafter.

But also, someone managed to leverage a number of fairly new-ish ideas into a popular enough bit of fiction to get them being talked about.

 

[Learner]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

The NT is a real mixed bag. For an understanding of morals and/or human nature, I would think Aesop's Fables would be a much more meaningful text.

Dr. Seuss has more to teach about human nature and morality than all the bibles ever printed put together.

I've seen the results of such teachings, pouting lips on Tik Tok and instagram.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

The NT is a real mixed bag. For an understanding of morals and/or human nature, I would think Aesop's Fables would be a much more meaningful text.

Dr. Seuss has more to teach about human nature and morality than all the bibles ever printed put together.

I've seen the results of such teachings - Tik Tok and instagram.

Tik Tok and instagram do offer a lot of inanity but what has Biblical teachings given us? Actually quite a lot:
... The Crusades.
... The many wars between Catholics and Protestants over who's interpretation was correct.
... The forced conversion and/or slaughter of "pagans" in the Americas and Africa.
... And, of course, the inquisition and the witch trials.

 

[Learner]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Any real discussion of the NT with atheists will soon become a discussion about the many. Contradictions of the resurrection tall tales of the gospels and Acts. Plus failed prophecies of the return of Jesus in the life time of his followers that failed. And the deep theology of these writings and Paul's epistles. God predestines all and arbitrarily chooses who is the elect and who is not chosen.

And finally all of that depends on God existing, which has a lot of problems when examined carefully. Problem Of Evil, free will and more.

The NT is a real mixed bag. For an understanding of morals and/or human nature, I would think Aesop's Fables would be a much more meaningful text.

Dr. Seuss has more to teach about human nature and morality than all the bibles ever printed put together.

I've seen the results of such teachings - Tik Tok and instagram.

Tik Tok and instagram do offer a lot of inanity but what has Biblical teachings given us? Actually quite a lot:
... The Crusades.
... The many wars between Catholics and Protestants over who's interpretation was correct.
... The forced conversion and/or slaughter of "pagans" in the Americas and Africa.
... And, of course, the inquisition and the witch trials.

These are fair points to note. It's one of those things: taking advantage of Chrisitanity - Religion, if rising and becoming popular among the masses; the leaders or King of the nation, publicly declares his alliegence to God. People seeing the act, then declare their allegience to the King (shouting... "God save the King!") but of course there's no real guarantee that this Kings commitment to God is real... the King can do anything in the name of God!

He can act somewhat as a prophet or have a designated church-leader do that instead, communicating with God. Also imo, to add, there's always been attempts to sabotage the Gospels since the beginning - Jesus and his teachings, the whole concept of his ministry has those who are against it - portraying their opposition from the narratives made about Jesus, you'd hear from the Sanhedrin; later continuing through their offshoots. Or for example, some of the gnostics trying to conceptually distort the texts into a different form of Chrisitanity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I could very easily imagine a Dr. Seuss book themed on the bible, projecting biblical behavior probably much like the behavior of the sneetches. Not sure how burning people alive and committing genocide and cultural genocide would be handled by the author but I am confident it would be succinctly addressed with the young reader and listener in mind.

The bible does not address the Dr. Seuss subject and cannot. Perhaps it's the difference between teaching and preaching.

 

[Swammerdami]

If we're keeping score, you can put me in the anti-Christian camp. From what I've read Muslims were generally more humane than "the Franks" during the Crusades; and Christianity has been the least admirable of religions (though Islam often seems like it's trying to catch up).

And I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a better magician than David Copperfield, nor that he had a special birth status and was more divine than Edith Murgatroyd of Oshkosh.

But the specific purpose of this thread is to discuss mythicism. ...

So far, I haven't seen anything like a coherent defense of historicism on your part. Given the scarcity of corroborating evidence outside of holy scripture for the existence of a real Jesus, historicism is going to be very difficult to defend other than to try to validate or corroborate parts of scripture that refer to Christ as a real person. It's not hard to show that much of what we think we know about the life of Jesus is made up. The tough part is coming up with a defense of what we believe to reflect historical reality.

Although it has zero effect on my spiritual thinking, I still believe Occam's Razor points clearly to a real Jesus of Nazareth being crucified by Pontius Pilate. Mythicists here have not acknowledged how exceedingly rare old documents are. Almost all old papyri that have turned up have been preserved in arid Egypt. The oldest known copy of Tacitus is from the 12th century.

As far as I can tell, mythicists believe that shortly after the date of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus "the Anointed," there were worshipers of a Jesus(?) "the Good" in Rome; a century or two later the Letters of Paul were doctored to make it appear that these two were the same man! And, most laughably, some webpage has an App where you can watch Bayes' Theorem demonstrate non-historicity while you watch!

I want to keep an open mind. Is there an article that lays out the myth conspiracy theory in enough detail to evaluate it? When did the unadulterated copies of Josephus fall out of use? What of the textual evidence that the Gospels were written before 70 AD?

 

[dbz]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

But the specific purpose of this thread is to discuss mythicism.

"What is Jesus mythicism and how is it understood among Biblical historians?". Reddit. r/AcademicBiblical. 2 August 2018.

This is to continue our series of questions for the FAQ over at r/AskBibleScholars.

Also, and importantly, all Jesus mythicist posts will be removed from r/AcademicBiblical and the OP will be directed to the answer(s) provided for the FAQ.

r/AcademicBiblical declared "No más" ( "I quit" match), but later walked it back:

EDIT: We will not be issuing blanket removals. See the helpful comment here.

and with >=20 upvotes given to this comment:

Jesus mythicism is the view that Jesus of Nazareth, the founder figure of Christianity, was more likely to have been a mythical person who was later historicized than a historical person who was later mythologized. It is in contrast with minimalist historicism (the mainstream view in current scholarship, that Jesus was an ordinary but real person, whose life share certain characteristics with the Jesus of the Gospels) and supernaturalist historicism (the view that Jesus was actually the Son of God as presented in the Gospels).
Mythicism in one of its earliest forms arose in the 19th century, owing much to the 1835 publication of David Strauss' Das Leben Jesu. Strauss did not argue that Jesus did not exist, but his work opened up scholarship to the idea that the supernaturalist narrative of the Gospels was fabricated for the purpose of creating a messiah figure. Bruno Bauer, building on Strauss' work, was perhaps the first to argue that the miracle stories were not just added on top of real events that occurred to a real Jesus, but entirely fabricated events that only occurred in the stories. His Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics proposed that the Jesus of the Gospels was a literary creation, which expanded in A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin to that literary creation not being based on a historical person.
There are many hypotheses which can be considered mythicist, some more plausible than others. Those that rely on conspiracy theories (such as Joseph Atwill's thesis in Caesar's Messiah, or the work of D.M. Murdock) or non-scholarly sources (such as the documentaries Zeitgeist and Religulous) are considered highly problematic at best by both mainstream scholarship and prominent proponents of mythicism. More reasonable hypotheses resemble that presented by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle, as summed up here by Richard Carrier:

On this model, Christianity, as a Jewish sect, began when someone (most likely Cephas, perhaps backed by his closest devotees) claimed this “Jesus” had at last revealed that he had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and being crucified by the Devil (in the region of the heavens ruled by Devil), thereby atoning for all of Israel’s sins, so the Jerusalem temple cult no longer mattered, the sins of Israel could no longer hold back God’s promise, and the end of the world could soon begin. On this theory, Christians did not go looking for proof-texts after their charismatic leader died, but actually conjured this angelic being’s salvific story from a pesher-like reading of scripture, finding clues to the whole thing especially in the conjunction of Daniel 9, Jeremiah 23 & 25, Isaiah 52-53, and Zechariah 3 & 6. Because it solved a major theological and political problem of the time: how the world could be saved when God’s temple (and thus atonement for Israel’s sins) remained in the hands of a corrupt elite “obviously” rejected by God.

It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

...

On this theory, when Paul says “the scriptures” tell us that Jesus “died” and “was buried” and only then was he ever “seen” by Cephas and the apostles (1 Cor. 15:3-5), he means exactly what he says. Just as in this and all other summaries of the gospel Paul provides (from here to Philippians 2) there is no mention of a ministry, or of Jesus being seen by anyone (much less anyone taught and hand-picked by him in life), because these things did not yet exist in Christian conception. They would be allegorical fictions contrived later by the authors of the Gospels. When Paul wrote, the death and burial of Jesus were known only from hidden messages in scripture, just as Romans 16:25-26 says. And this knowledge was facilitated by this Jesus then at last appearing to the apostles to inform them of all this, and what it meant. In fact, being thus visited by the celestial Christ is what secured one’s status as an apostle (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal 1:11-12).

...

This “Jesus” would most likely have been the same archangel identified by Philo of Alexandria as already extant in Jewish theology. Philo knew this figure by all of the attributes Paul already knew Jesus by: the firstborn son of God (Rom. 8:29), the celestial “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4), and God’s agent of creation (1 Cor. 8:6). He was also God’s celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14, etc.) and God’s “Logos.” And Philo says this being was identified as the figure named “Jesus” in Zechariah 6. So it would appear that already before Christianity there were Jews aware of a celestial being named Jesus who had all of the attributes the earliest Christians were associating with their celestial being named Jesus. They therefore had no need of a historical man named Jesus. All they needed was to imagine this celestial Jesus undergoing a heavenly incarnation and atoning death, in order to accomplish soteriologically what they needed, in order to no longer rely upon the Jewish temple authorities for their salvation.

Mythicism currently does not enjoy much acceptance in the Biblical studies community. Most scholars currently believe that there was a historical Jesus, even if it is difficult to know anything about him due to the state of the evidence. Notable exceptions include Thomas L. Brodie (Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery), Robert M. Price (The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems), Hector Avalos (not a mythicist, but expresses approval for the project in The End of Biblical Studies), Thomas L. Thompson (The Messiah Myth, Is This Not the Carpenter?), Philip R. Davies (not a mythicist, but argues that less certainty as to Jesus' existence would “nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability”), Kurt Noll (“Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus” in Is This Not the Carpenter?), Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus), and Raphael Lataster (argues for historicity agnosticism, There Was No Jesus, There Is No God, Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists). Also of note is the work of G.A. Wells (Did Jesus Exist?, The Jesus Myth, Cutting Jesus Down to Size).
Edit: A useful reference list of mythicists, historicity agnostics, and sympathetic historicists who have been alive this century, as well as what they say, can be found here.

• Godfrey, Neil. "WHO's WHO: Mythicists, Mythicist Agnostics & Historicists Who Call for Scholarly Debate (Updated 6th August 2020)". Vridar.

 

[Swammerdami]

It is agreed that the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel were later additions — according to Wilson they do not appear in the mid-4th century Sinaiticus copy of Mark. Think about that for a moment. A canonical Gospel published three (3) centuries after the alleged Resurrection doesn't mention any post-Resurrection sightings!!

Is this evidence that the Resurrection itself was probably a myth? Sure! But it is also evidence that the mythmakers, if any, were preposterously ill-organized.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

The Resurrection is the most central tenet in Christian faith, whether mythicised or not. Yet a 4th-century copy of Mark omits discussion? (And what scant mention there is could have been added during the three centuries.) What do the mythicists think of this? That Mark was writing about some other fictional Jesus, but his Gospel was grandfathered-in for old time's sake?

 

[dbz]

The Resurrection is the most central tenet in Christian faith, whether mythicised or not. Yet a 4th-century copy of Mark omits discussion? (And what scant mention there is could have been added during the three centuries.) What do the mythicists think of this? That Mark was writing about some other fictional Jesus, but his Gospel was grandfathered-in for old time's sake?

Alternate endings​

See the Wikipedia article on Mark 16.

“”Mark’s strange ending . . . has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!

—James Tabor[13]

The original ending of Mark is chapter 16 verse 8, "[The women] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." The Greek version of Mark ends in what is apparently mid-sentence. The final two words are εφοβουντο γαρ, this is significant because nowhere else in ancient Greek is a sentence ended with the word γαρ (meaning "for").

Mark is the only canonical gospel with significant various alternate endings. However, most of the contents of the traditional longer ending, verses 16:9-20, are found in the other gospels and are not unique to Mark

. This longer ending appears to be an interpolation added early in order that Mark's ending resemble those of the other gospels.

All alternate endings are forgeries, which include: a short ending summarizing the traditional longer ending; and a long ending detailing Jesus' role in defeating sin, inserted around the fifth century (see Gospel of Mark §. Ending

).[14][15][16]

Historizing trend after Mark​

The canonical gospels when laid out chronologically illustrate the progression towards historizing a bodily resurrection. Neil Godfrey writes,

• Mark merely has an empty tomb and no resurrection appearance, and this is the sort of indicator that one reads in Greco-Roman stories of Heracles and co — the disappearance of the body was the conventional indicator that the deceased had been taken to join the gods.
• Matthew has a resurrection appearance or two, and in the first one the women hold Jesus by the feet. In the second one Jesus stands on a mountain and some disciples are not even convinced it is Jesus.
• Luke has Jesus vanishing before the eyes of onlookers and appearing mysteriously in the middle of closed rooms, but to persuade disciples he was nonetheless flesh he told them to touch him and watch him eat.
• John then has the famous doubting Thomas scene where Jesus, after having asked his disciples to have a look at his flesh, appears again to require they (or at least one of them) thrust their hands into his side. He then starts a fire on a beach and cooks everyone a meal of fish.

So even within the gospels themselves we can see an evolution of the idea of the resurrection of the physical body.[18]

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment...

Carrier writes:

The naked young man

is an allegory for death and resurrection. Notice he is stripped naked of a linen cloak at the arrest; and appears after the resurrection in a radiant white robe.[115] These were well known literary tropes (the body of flesh as linen garment; the resurrection body as donning a glorious white robe). I analyze this in my chapter on the Empty Tomb legend in The Empty Tomb.[116] The man’s anonymity allows him to stand in for everyone, including Mark’s readers/hearers.[113]