Doherty's Mythicism

[_Symmachus]

As he sailed by the gulf of Puteoli, it happened that from an Alexandrian ship which had just arrived there, the passengers and crew, clad in white, crowned with garlands, and burning incense, lavished upon him good wishes and the highest praise, saying that it was through him (per illum) that they lived, through him (per illum) that they sailed the seas, and through him (per illum) that they enjoyed their liberty and their fortunes.

And then he gives them some money! One of my favorite stories from Suetonius. If you can forgive my intrusion into your thread, but we also votive tablets to Augustus and other emperors, just as we have for gods, as I'm sure you know well but others here might not. That means we have physical evidence that the worship of humans as gods was not at all unusual, since they come from all over the empire. Here is a votive tablet by a soldier named Gaius Julius Lysias from the famed Thirteenth Legion Gemina. It is dedicated to Augustus, who he is actually referred to as "Augustus Apollo" (and Augustus's house in Rome, by the way, was next to the temple of Apollo).

For the uninitiated, see also here for an old account (but free) of some the titles that could be found on votive offerings. Most of these are cultic titles that could also be applied to gods.

There is even a story about these tablets that involves Pilate from the first century here is a story about them in Philo where Pilate is alleged to have set up golden votive tablets (small shields) in Herod's palace in Jerusalem with the emperor Tiberius's name on them. This is supposedly one of the reasons that Jews were so pissed off (according to Philo) with the Roman administrators. Of course, he was writing in tense situation: the emperor Caligula had demanded that a statue of himself be set up and worshiped in the Jerusalem temple, and this story about is told in Philo's appeal. It is obviously a highly polemical context, but even so, the context itself and the story reveal divinization as a powerful component of the ideological makeup in the first century CE Mediterranean.

And yet we're supposed to ignore that in favor of a theory which has no analog whatsoever?

[_Jersey Girl]

Is this thread complete? I was reading/following it...

Nope! I have family visiting, but stay tuned for further additions. Thanks for reading.

Thank you. I read almost every word you write on these topics.

[_Kishkumen]

Another interesting point about the deification of Jesus is that fragmentary, pre-Pauline "creeds" in the New Testament indicate that a number of earlier Christians (i.e., before Paul) believed that Jesus was both deified and became the son of God through his resurrection. This is quite the opposite of what the mythicist position supposes was the case.

If John's myth of the Logos were the earliest theology, then the mythicists would be golden. It is a lot more difficult to accept that Jesus started as a mystical entity that was transformed into a man, however, when these little creeds portray him as a human who was adopted as God's son at the baptism or his resurrection. Or became divine through possession by the Holy Spirit or at the resurrection. Such stories reflect the reworking of the story of a man who later came to be seen as a god, not vice versa.

[_Jersey Girl]

Another interesting point about the deification of Jesus is that fragmentary, pre-Pauline "creeds" in the New Testament indicate that a number of earlier Christians (i.e., before Paul) believed that Jesus was both deified and became the son of God through his resurrection. This is quite the opposite of what the mythicist position supposes was the case.

If John's myth of the Logos were the earliest theology, then the mythicists would be golden. It is a lot more difficult to accept that Jesus started as a mystical entity that was transformed into a man, however, when these little creeds portray him as a human who was adopted as God's son at the baptism or his resurrection. Or became divine through possession by the Holy Spirit or at the resurrection. Such stories reflect the reworking of the story of a man who later came to be seen as a god, not vice versa.

Please if you will entertain a question. I am almost always reading these types of threads, but I don't even know enough to be able to pose a question.

When you are talking about John's myth of the Logos, are you talking about Jesus as the living Word?

[_jo1952]

Great thread!

[_Analytics]

Hi Kish,

I don't want to derail this fascinating thread, but I also wonder if using mystery cults to explain Jesus imports Greek and Roman thought into stories which obviously originate in 1st century Judaism.

But remember that Rome conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C. After living for a couple of generations under Roman rule, one would expect some Greco-Roman thought to influence Jewish ideas--especially if Judaism wasn't working very well for its adherents.

[_Kishkumen]

Actually, ancient Palestine fell under Hellenistic rule after the conquests of Alexander the Great, so strong Hellenic influence came long before Pompey took Jerusalem. There were camps that resisted Hellenic influence and others that embraced it. Jewish communities in the diaspora peppered the Medierranean, inhabiting such urban centers as Rome and Alexandria. This too happened long before Pompey.

[_Chap]

Actually, ancient Palestine fell under Hellenistic rule after the conquests of Alexander the Great, so strong Hellenic influence came long before Pompey took Jerusalem. There were camps that resisted Hellenic influence and others that embraced it. Jewish communities in the diaspora peppered the Medierranean, inhabiting such urban centers as Rome and Alexandria. This too happened long before Pompey.

Hence (as Kishkumen certainly knows) the Maccabees - it's all in the Bible, as well as Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees

The Maccabees, also spelled Machabees (Hebrew: מכבים or מקבים‎, Maqabim; Latin: Machabi or Machado; Greek: Μακκαβαῖοι, Makkabaioi), were the leaders of a Jewish rebel army that took control of Judea, which at the time had been a province of the Seleucid Empire. They founded the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE. They reasserted the Jewish religion, partly by forced conversion, expanded the boundaries of Judea by conquest and reduced the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism.

[_Analytics]

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

While vague, this passages seems to me to suggest that at some point, Paul's Jesus was on earth and assumed the form of a human being, and a humble one at that, and at least appeared to have died by crucifixion. Whether this leaves open the possibility that Jesus inhabited a divine realm before or after these events is uncertain, but it makes little sense to suppose that Paul is saying that this Jesus hung out in some upper realm and there took on the form of a human servant to suffer death on a cross. In other words, the passage strongly suggests that at some point, Paul's Jesus lived in circumstances roughly similar to what one finds later in the gospels. This scripture would not lead me (or his ancient readers, for that matter) to believe that Jesus never lived on the earth.

This scripture gets to the heart of it. There are two hypotheses we are considering: hypothesis 1--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the guy from Nazareth who had a multiple-year career preaching love and forgiveness, and was eventually executed by crucifixion. Hypothesis 2--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the God that descended from the top level of heaven to the lowest level of heaven, changing his form to disguise himself as he descended, and then being crucified once there.

Verses that talk of Jesus descending heaven, disguising himself, being crucified, and being resurrected describe precisely what Doherty thought the earliest Christian's actually believed.

In contrast, if Jesus was a historical person and the founder of Christianity, the earliest Christians believed what Jesus taught, which would have been different than this--surely Jesus didn't go around teaching that he was a god in disguise and came to earth to be crucified on a cross.

[_Chap]

There are two hypotheses we are considering: hypothesis 1--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the guy from Nazareth who had a multiple-year career preaching love and forgiveness, and was eventually executed by crucifixion. Hypothesis 2--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the God that descended from the top level of heaven to the lowest level of heaven, changing his form to disguise himself as he descended, and then being crucified once there.

Need those views of Jesus be seen as mutually exclusive?

I can report that during the time I was a mainstream Christian believer (and not a theologically naïve one either) I would have given a broad assent to both of them, though I would not have used those precise terms.