Speaker A
Yeah, the question is, was Mark just come up with this out of the blue? But when you read First Clement, he has absolutely nothing about a Galilean Jesus. There's no, there's no, none of the gospel stories.
Explores Richard Carrier's theory that Mark invented the historical Jesus, contrasting revelatory celestial Jesus origins with Mark's fictional euhemerization.
Key Takeaways
- Mark likely invented the historical Galilean Jesus rather than adapting an existing tradition.
- Early Christian writings like First Clement do not mention a historical Jesus figure.
- Christianity may have originated as a revelatory cult centered on a celestial Jesus.
- The Gospel of Mark provides a structured, symbolic narrative that serves as the first earthly Jesus story.
- There are many plausible and implausible theories about Jesus’ historicity; this video favors the theory of Mark’s invention.
Summary
- The video discusses whether the Gospel of Mark invented the figure of a Galilean Jesus out of whole cloth.
- First Clement, an early Christian text, contains no references to a historical Galilean Jesus or gospel stories.
- The presenter emphasizes distinguishing between plausible and implausible historicity and mythicist theories.
- Two main theories are compared: one where a revelatory celestial Jesus cult evolved into an earthly Jesus narrative, and one where Mark created a fictional historical Jesus.
- Mark is proposed as the originator of the earthly Jesus story, crafting a coherent narrative with symbolic and mythological elements.
- The analogy of Homeric legends is used to illustrate how oral traditions can be canonized, but Mark’s story is argued to be a novel creation rather than an evolution.
- First Clement and Pauline writings show no evidence of a historical Jesus narrative prior to Mark.
- The video argues that Mark’s narrative was not based on existing traditions about Jesus’ family, crucifixion by Pilate, or specific locations like Nazareth.
- The presenter concludes that Mark’s Gospel was likely the first to historicize the celestial Jesus into a human figure.
- The discussion highlights the complexity and variety of theories about the historicity of Jesus and the origins of Christianity.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction: Was Mark's Jesus invented?
- 00:28Plausibility of mythicism vs historicity theories
- 01:26Celestial Jesus and revelatory cult origins
- 02:12Comparing two theories of Jesus' origin
- 02:47Clarifying the two scenarios
- 03:27Homeric analogy and oral tradition
- 04:37Mark's narrative as a novel creation
- 07:02First Clement and absence of historical Jesus
- 08:54Conclusion: Mark as the origin of earthly Jesus story
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
stories. It's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable.
Speaker A
It's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable. Right. I'm not talking about what I, I don't think it's impossible. No, no, I just, it could be the other way around. There are lots of plausible historicity theories. There are a lot of implausible ones, too. But,
Speaker A
that's the same with mythicism. There are tons of implausible mythicist theories. It's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable.
Speaker A
that's the same with mythicism. There are tons of implausible mythicist theories. It's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable. Right. I'm not talking about what I, I don't think it's impossible. No, no, I just, it could be the other way around. There are lots of plausible historicity theories. There are a lot of implausible ones, too. But,
Speaker A
that's the same with mythicism. There are tons of implausible mythicist theories. Dr. Richard Carrier, another one of my supporters, and I believe that actually it's the same one Noah Chris asks. In your book, you suggest that the original
Speaker A
that's the same with mythicism. There are tons of implausible mythicist theories. Dr. Richard Carrier, another one of my supporters, and I believe that actually it's the same one Noah Chris asks. In your book, you suggest that the original
Speaker A
there any reason to believe that the Galilean Jesus wasn't just created wholesale by the author of Mark?
Speaker A
Christians were a revelatory cult that centered around a celestial Jesus who was crucified in a celestial realm, and that this idea only later developed into the idea of an earthly person. The question is, if we assume this to be true, is
Speaker A
assume the origin of Christianity to be revelatory, then which scenario do you believe best fits the evidence?
Speaker A
there any reason to believe that the Galilean Jesus wasn't just created wholesale by the author of Mark?
Speaker A
You have if we assume this to be true about the celestial Jesus, okay? Is there any reason to believe that the Galilean Jesus wasn't just created wholesale by the author of Mark?
Speaker A
Basically, there's two theories to compare. One in which the revelatory cult evolved via development into the story of an earthly person, and one in which Mark wrote an entirely novel and fictional euhemerization that gradually escaped its mystery cult context. If we
Speaker A
Okay. And in one which Mark which Mark wrote an entire Okay. Now I get it.
Speaker A
assume the origin of Christianity to be revelatory, then which scenario do you believe best fits the evidence?
Speaker A
Right. And or versus like were were the ideas of a Galilean a mythification already floating around in the other communities and stuff and then Mark just did like Homer the so the we we it's not going to be on this particular
Speaker A
All right, I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between the two scenarios as described. I thought he was going in a different direction, so see if you can to to me what, what are the two scenarios now? We have one where
Speaker A
And because the the works of Homer were written over hundreds of years. They literally they span the bronze and iron age. And so what what it was is these rhapsodes these singers would go around and and sing the story of things. So
Speaker A
you have, if we assume this to be true about the celestial Jesus, okay? Is there any reason to believe that the Galilean Jesus wasn't just created wholesale by the author of Mark?
Speaker A
specific man. But that's an example of where the Homeric legends grew over time and then someone just stamped a canonical version of it and thread the publishing that, right?
Speaker A
Okay, that's option one. And basically there's two theories to compare. One in which the revelatory cult evolved via legendary development into the story of an earthly person.
Speaker A
were just talking about the revelatory Jesus, revelations of Jesus, that's it. And then Mark comes along and says bam, puts it in a historical context, makes it into another piece of scripture, another sort of myth of historical events that never
Speaker A
Okay. And in one which Mark, which Mark wrote an entire... Okay. Now I get it.
Speaker A
Uh that's impossible uh in my opinion because whoever wrote that letter was completely unaware of uh the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Uh and that would have been such a apposite analogy for him to use in his
Speaker A
Yeah. Okay? Yeah, the question is, was, was did Mark just come up with this out of the blue?
Speaker A
War. So that's '60s and if Mark's writing the '70s there's not a lot of difference in time between First Clement and Mark. But when you read First Clement he has absolutely nothing about a Galilean Jesus. There's no there's no
Speaker A
Right. And or versus like, were the ideas of a Galilean, a mythification already floating around in the other communities and stuff and then Mark just did like Homer the... So we, we, it's not going to be on this particular
Speaker A
author of First Clement actually acts like he takes quotations from the Bible uh and says as Christ says and then he'll just verbatim quote uh the Septuagint basically.
Speaker A
reel, but we have, we were discussing at one point how the name Homer doesn't really refer to any actual specific person.
Speaker A
that stories and information about and from Jesus come from scripture and from revelation and he has no knowledge of the narrative that we find there's no reference to the crucifixion by Pilate or any of that stuff or family of Jesus
Speaker A
And because the works of Homer were written over hundreds of years. They literally, they span the Bronze and Iron Age. And so what it was is these rhapsodes, these singers would go around and sing the story of things. So
Speaker A
Clement. And you can see also in the Paul Paul's writing in the '50s there's not a lot of time that's 20 years difference there's not a lot of time between Paul and Mark. So, I don't think there was an evolution of the Galilean
Speaker A
whoever the name Homer was like the editor essentially in this sense. So it, Homer might have references to just, it just means singers, right? Like just it's a general refers to the guild of people who sing this. So it wasn't a
Speaker A
a particular scriptural reason why he's putting Jesus in Nazareth, um why he's having Capernaum involved, why he's uh telling the story the way he Why he's putting Pontius Pilate there, why he's doing all of these things.
Speaker A
specific man. But that's an example of where the Homeric legends grew over time and then someone just stamped a canonical version of it and thread the publishing that, right?
Speaker A
random lore. Like everything in there serves a specific purpose in the full line of his narrative. So, I think Mark is making this up whole cloth. I think it's the It's the first time anyone's heard of this and he's telling it as an
Speaker A
So the question is, is that how the Galilean Jesus rose? Did he rise like these accumulated myths that people, it was just easier to tell a story about a euhemerized man to sell the gospel? Or is it that no one was doing that? People
Speaker A
historicize it and stuff over time. So, I think it's Mark is the the launcher of this whole idea.
Speaker A
were just talking about the revelatory Jesus, revelations of Jesus, that's it. And then Mark comes along and says bam, puts it in a historical context, makes it into another piece of scripture, another sort of myth of historical events that never
Speaker A
And that's it's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable.
Speaker A
occurred. I'm pretty sure it's the latter. And one of the examples of why I believe that is, oh gosh, this has several steps. But one is, so the First Clement, this is letter First Clement, traditionally dated to the end of the first century.
Speaker A
of implausible mythicist theories. Uh but, there are plenty of plausible historicist theories and I I give [snorts] possibility to a wide range of them. And so, and a decent probability.
Speaker A
That's impossible, in my opinion, because whoever wrote that letter was completely unaware of the Jewish War and the destruction of the Jewish Temple. And that would have been such an apposite analogy for him to use in his
Speaker A
It's just not high enough for people to be satisfied. They they want it to be much higher than one in three.
Speaker A
argument in his rhetoric that it is essentially impossible for him to not have used it as an example. So he cannot have been writing, he had to be writing in the '60s because he's writing after Paul's dead but before the Jewish
Speaker A
I recently made a funny meme where I had Paul on one side and Clement on the other with the Israel only guys that we've been in talk Okay.
Speaker A
War. So that's '60s and if Mark's writing the '70s, there's not a lot of difference in time between First Clement and Mark. But when you read First Clement he has absolutely nothing about a Galilean Jesus. There's no, there's no
Speaker A
Mhm. He's not a Jew, he's not an Israelite, he's a pagan, Joe Schmo pagan, who's writing in and I think it's first Clement chapter 29 or 30 or something.
Speaker A
none of the gospel stories are in there. To First Clement there's only two sources of anything that about Jesus is the apostles saw him in a vision like he's talking about revelatory Jesus and scripture. Like First Clement, the
Speaker A
into the whole election thing. Mhm. Yeah. think it's interesting because if he's writing before 70 AD, that's even worse for the IO guys cuz they say after 70 the conspiracy of pagans wanting to take over Christianity is when that happens.
Speaker A
author of First Clement actually acts like he takes quotations from the Bible and says as Christ says and then he'll just verbatim quote the Septuagint basically.
Speaker A
Even some people want to argue Paul, right? They'll go well, Paul knows something in this and you guys will say probably interpolation or You're thinking of first Thessalonians two. There's a there's a passage in there that definitely references
Speaker A
And there's many examples of that and they're even quoting texts that don't exist anymore. So there's like they're using some sort of set of scriptures that aren't in, aren't in our current Bible. So he, they, he thinks
Speaker A
Right. But it's there's still not a lot of detail even if one wanted to say, well, that could be simply uh some other potential explanation. I don't know. The Right. There are a lot I I find those extremely implausible, but yes, there
Speaker A
that stories and information about and from Jesus come from scripture and from revelation and he has no knowledge of the narrative that we find. There's no reference to the crucifixion by Pilate or any of that stuff or family of Jesus
Speaker A
reinterpret a verse to mean something other than what it So I think the question is like, where does the evidence lean in terms of that? And in some cases the evidence might be 50/50.
Speaker A
having family. It's not in there even when it would be apposite to mention. So, I think when you look at First Clement you're seeing the state of Christianity just 10 years before Mark comes along and there's no gospel Jesus in First
Speaker A
just does not fit the context, does not fit the vocabulary. Um it's far more probable it means this other thing." And so that that's the way the debate would go in any particular case like that.
Speaker A
Clement. And you can see also in the Paul, Paul's writing in the '50s, there's not a lot of time, that's 20 years difference, there's not a lot of time between Paul and Mark. So, I don't think there was an evolution of the Galilean
Speaker A
Mhm. Yes. But here's the problem with that and I want your thoughts on it.
Speaker A
Jesus. I think this is an idea that came completely out of Mark's head and he decided, "I'm going to write a story, an extended parable about Jesus." And he's picking and choosing where he's going to have Jesus be and go. I think there's
Speaker A
or if he's if he did write it, he can't be referring to destruction of the temple.
Speaker A
a particular scriptural reason why he's putting Jesus in Nazareth, why he's having Capernaum involved, why he's telling the story the way he, why he's putting Pontius Pilate there, why he's doing all of these things.
Speaker A
He doesn't say it will come. Right. Right? So it's not a prophetic statement. It is a historical Yeah, it is absolutely No, it has come. Perfect.
Speaker A
I think there's mythological, symbolical reasons why he's doing all of that stuff. And it's all coherent. Like Mark's story structure is elaborately structured from beginning to end. So, there's a logic of it. So, there's no room in there for him to just throw in
Speaker A
statement about it? I Yes, probably. He would have [laughter] probably been like, "You know what? I knew it and There would be tons of issues coming up that he would have to address. Like what happened to the original Jerusalem
Speaker A
random lore. Like everything in there serves a specific purpose in the full line of his narrative. So, I think Mark is making this up whole cloth. I think it's the first time anyone's heard of this and he's telling it as an
Speaker A
Jewish war. So there we would should have tons of letters dealing with this tragedy and how people are coping with it and how it's changing the way the the mission works with the saints.
Speaker A
allegory or as a symbolical representation of the message of the gospel through the superficial veneer of this story. And then later people who don't like what Mark did start changing it up and adding to it and trying to
Speaker A
letters, no anything from no references to oh, I knew so-and-so. Um there's like third hand like I knew someone who knew someone who knew the apostle right?
Speaker A
historicize it and stuff over time. So, I think it's Mark is the launcher of this whole idea.
Speaker A
But there's no actual like concrete evidence that any of the original apostles survived the war. They may have done cuz it's just possible that we just don't have the evidence of it.
Speaker A
It's interesting because you can play both ways and come up with sure, absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker A
Ladies and gentlemen, join MythVision Patreon not only to support us, but there are 72 videos that I did with Dr.
Speaker A
And that's, it's important to point out that I'm talking about what I think is more probable. Right. I'm not talking about what I, I don't think it's impossible. No, no. I just, there are lots of plausible historicity theories. There are a lot...
Topics:Richard CarrierMark GospelJesus historicityMythicismFirst ClementCelestial JesusEuhemerizationChristian originsMythVision TVBiblical criticism
![[CC]FULL《炽热的夏天》EP01：寻找最合拍搭子！包上恩周柯宇礼物同频默契拉满｜#包上恩 #周柯宇 #炽… — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oHa4dHs7-2A/maxresdefault.jpg)
