Good question.

I forgot to index the Didache in OHJ. I dismissed it there as unusable because undatable (it’s also corrupt; there are multiple versions, so we cannot be certain we have the original text and manuals were the most prone to continual revision). But I also have never found anything in it usable even could we date it early (I find some tangential uses in Obsolete Paradigm, though I also need to correct the index there, as there is a mention on both p. 361 and 46).

The phrase you cite is unfortunately too ambiguous to do anything with. I know the Greek word has the tantalizing root “cosmic” but the word did not mean exactly what that means in English but actually, often, the opposite: it means worldly, earthly (see Hebrews 9:1), and in juxtaposition often with priestly, clerical, official, i.e. performing “worldly mysteries” meant an itinerant lay missionary walking the earth and not officially assigned a church or holding rank.

But that this was described as “mysteries” is already in Paul so we don’t need to cite late dubious sources for it. I cite various studies, which likely in turn cover the Didache or other documents in the early centuries, which suffices to make the point. It would be really foolish for an apologist today to deny the Christian sacraments were from the beginning understood as “mysteries” complete with secret information (Paul explicitly says this several times).

Richard,
Regarding the Didache, I found this passage particularly intriguing:
ὃς ἂν ποιῇ εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας (Didache 11:11).
I noticed you didn’t refer to it in OTHOJ, but it might have some relevance to your argument for early Christianity as a mystery cult.

Ever since that interview was published I’ve been thinking about when they said essentially that the more you learn about Biblical scholarship the more likely you are to believe Jesus was a real person.

I find it interesting because I can see why they feel like it’s true, as almost everyone they know in academia firmly believes in a historical Jesus while they mostly hear about mythicism from amateurs. But I’m not so sure it’s actually true, and even if it is it’s not for the reason they’re implying.

For one, I don’t think it’s true. The vast majority of people in the Western World (i.e. where biblical studies is prominent) are Christians, who believe in a historical Jesus for religious reasons. And even most non-Christians still believe in a historical Jesus. Mythicists are a tiny minority even outside of academia.

But it also doesn’t describe how Biblical scholars engage this topic. They make it sound like there are loads of mythicists going into Bible studies who then realize the errors of their ways as they learn more. In reality Bible studies classes are filled with Christians who naturally believe Jesus was a real person. I haven’t heard of a single Bible scholar who entered into it as a mythicist only to change their mind because of the evidence. They go in believing in a historical Jesus and come out with the same belief. Ironically the only scholar I’ve heard of who’s said they’ve changed their mind on the topic is Carrier. (The only prominent person I’ve heard change their minds on this in the other direction is Derek from Mythvision, who seems like a smart and knowledgeable guy but is still an amateur.)

This argument doesn’t land once you actually think about it.

That’s a good question.

If we split the question into two, where did the atoning dying and rising messiah idea come from and where did the particular specific detail of where the third day came from, then there is an answer to each, but separately, and within larger articles not in articles on their own.

For the third day element I assemble most of the relevant information within:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?

For the dying and rising element, there is a vast academic literature, which I summarize within:

Some Controversial Ideas That Now Have Wide Scholarly Support

(I have a peer reviewed study on that coming out sometime this year. I’ll announce when it’s out.)

Do you have any essays on your blog that list and discuss all the many scriptural passages that may have been used as pesher to derive the messiah’s resurrection, even specifically on or after the third day? I searched but didn’t find any comprehensive list. I was thinking how occasionally I hear this talking point popularized by NT Wright, that there’s no way anyone could’ve expected it or derived it from scripture. Ehrman of course as said similar things, gullibly acting like nothing could’ve ever suggested it.

Off the top of my head I’m thinking:

Hosea’s “third day” and Psalm 24 are obvious candidates.

Daniel 8-12; “time, times, and half a time” of tribulation may have been linked to the duration of his death in days.

Ezekiel 37 – valley of dry bones; the messiah as israel’s representative would rise; just as the lost tribes would rise.

Deuteronomy 34:10 – Jason Staples drew my attention to this one, as Paul in Romans 10:4 says the messiah is the end of the torah. And coincidentally at the end of the Torah, in Deuteronomy you have the declaration that a prophet like Moses as not “risen” to this day. 

Zech 6 – the one called Rising

The Joseph Narrative? 

Indeed. He rarely has anything right.

thanks. now I really just need to read OHJ!

I don’t have any strong opinions about that. But I think it is likely.

Correct.

I make this point in OHJ as well (and more again in OPH).

When you start realizing that the consensus is emerging that the Gospels are literary creations (Dom Crossan, Robyn Walsh), mythicism starts making a lot of sense.

You’ll also note — where Carrier agrees with Ehrman, he points that out and I’ve noticed he usually gives the praise. Same with James Tabor. Lots of disagreements going on.

A petty person doesn’t make these acknowledgements.

I enjoy it all. I find there’s a case to be made for mythicism — and say even if there was a historical Jesus, you’ll learn a lot about the context Paul was writing in and the context of Christianity…and that’s the only thing we can be certain of one way or another. (and then its fun to see things get corroborated elsewhere)