Dave31

In the mythicist position video the definition of "myth" mentioned is:

The mythicist position video

What is a Mythicist?

Thread here on Mythicism

mountainman

Moratorium
It might be successfully argued that the rise of the "mythicist" position (as might be gleaned from a review of the publications which use this specific term with respect to the issues treated in BC&H) is actually in fact a moratorium --- a delay or suspension --- in the following and pursuit of the long standing "historicist position" ....which has been found very wanting, and which has been continuously bloated by the WILL to BELIEVE.

As a result, the definition of the "mythicist" position (which I am assuming is here being sought) is to be found by an analysis and antithesis of the "historicist" position, which as we all know, has been the quasi-default position of practically all mainstream treatments of the issues of the history of "Christian Origins". At the end of the day for BC&H, the definition of "myth" and the definition of "history" are obviously highly related in their specifications, and the task is really to try and separate the essences of both -- in union and in conjunction and in their antithetical properties.

In summary any need for a moratorium on the use of the term "myth" on BC&H has arisen because of, and is in some manner directly or indirectly related to the need for a moratorium, explicit or implicit, on the use of the term "history" in BC&H.

Time will tell.

aa5874

But, what about "agnostic"? Should not there be a moratorium on "agnostic" until agnostics either become mythicists or historicists?

mountainman

Spin might like agnostic spin but, history is no theology.
With history and not myth the control of the evidence is compulsory not optional.

aa5874

But, agnostics perhaps are so because they can't or have great difficulty identifying the difference between myth and history.

But, others do know or have a basic understanding of the difference between myth and history.

Homer's Achilles was a myth. Agnostics may never agree.

Therein lies their difficulty.

They perhaps lack a basic understanding of myth and history.

Others with an understanding of mythology see the similarities between mythological entities and the NT Jesus and without hesitation declare that there is a match. The NT Jesus was a myth, too, just like Homer's Achilles and Plutarch's Romulus and ZEUS and Apollo, and......like all of them MYTHS.

Agnostics may never ever agree. They just don't know or have no idea whether Jesus was a myth or not.

Clivedurdle

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780192803474.do

grog225

As one who is often called a "myther" I have to say that this isn't exactly the take on the "Jesus myth' that I tend to take. My concern is that claims about Christian origins are made that just are simply not supported by the available evidence. The methodology is to work backward from documents that are much later...the Gospels, which are almost universally considered unreliable in terms of extracting from them historical events of the earlier first century. Methodologically (and I'm not a classicist, but a modernist, just to be clear), this seems to me to be a huge mistake. When I read popular works say, by L. Michael White or J.D. Crossan, they will fill in blanks in the evidence with evidence from documents that they themselves call into question! For example, it is almost a universal practice amongst New Testament scholars (I want to emphasize that term because it has bearing on why we are stuck in a consensus that we are in) to fill in the gaps of Paul's biography with information from Acts, even though it is well known that Acts is very late, seems to have either no knowledge of Paul's letters OR deliberately contradicts them, and are generally unreliable. This last point is often acknowledged at the outset of any biography of Paul, but followed quickly by some statement of yes, well we are going to use it anyway!

My point is a methodological one: We should give priority to documents that earliest and closest to the source. Also, we must weigh the purpose of the author of documents. Letters, if they be genuinely so, would be more likely reliable in their portrayal of a particular persons actual point of view than a document written a century after the fact with clear theological purposes in mind. So a reading of Paul, for example, should take precedence over Acts. And where they are in conflict, Paul generally rules unless we have reason to believe he is lying (or forged!) or just plain mistaken in his views. So far, usually, so good. Here we depart: New Testament scholars then say: Ok, but where Paul doesn't say anything, we can supplement it with Acts! No! There is no way to otherwise corroborate the claims made in Acts, Acts is tainted with theological purpose, possibly a purpose at direct odds with Paul's original purpose, etc, etc. We cannot make claims from Acts that are not otherwise supported elsewhere. We cannot fill in the gaps in Paul with Acts or even the Gospels!

What this mistaken methodology does is it allows the whole Jesus story to be read into Paul where indeed Paul is silent or has a completely different point of view. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

In a wonderful paper, Demonology in Paul by Lee (I don't have the exact reference on my laptop here), Lee acknowledges that Paul attributes the crucifixion of Jesus to demons. Demons are the active agents in this drama. Paul gives no hint in the text itself (and the key passage is 1 Cor 2:6-8, I believe) that Romans or Jews are involved. Lee goes on to say that clearly Paul means that the Romans and Jews were so moved by the Demons to do their dirty work for them. Paul says that nowhere. In fact, Romans 13 directly contradicts this. We cannot read into 1 Cor2:6-8 the gospel passion story! It isn't there, or anywhere, in Paul! Other statements in Paul rule against us accepting the idea that he holds Romans or Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Our conclusion from reading Paul ought to be: Paul had no knowledge of Roman or Jewish involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. He believes Jesus was crucified by demons. Maybe Paul was wrong about that. Maybe the passion story really did occur somewhat as stated in the Gospels. At least that jesus was crucified under Pilate, etc., etc. If so, the historian has the task of coming up with a hypothesis to explain how Paul couldn't have known that. Even though he seems to be about as close to the action as one could be without being an eyewitness, he somehow has missed this key event. why? That's a huge hurdle to overcome for a methodologically sound approach.

The simple fact is that New Testament studies are based on fundamentally unsound practices. It's usually justified on the basis of the scantness of the evidence. That's a copout in my opinion. We have some wonderful sources to work with. Paul is a goldnmine (though I recognzie the many issues that exist in working with the Paulina).

My point on the myth position is this: the evidence does not support the bible story. The evidence that any of it was based on a singular human being named Jesus Christ is scant. The story does have the hallmarks of myth (the name alone is a hint!). There is evidence in the belief in a heavenly Jesus Christ...this figure is known before it has the name attached, known as the Logos (see Philo). Jesus Christ is just a later version of the Logos. Call that myth if you want. It is what it is.

spin

You don't seem to be dealing with the OP which is about the problems involved in every dog and its fleas having a different definition of "myth" and by insisting on using the term one is perpetuating a lack of communication. "My definition of myth is fine and this is the crud to explain why" doesn't change the fact that we have discordant definitions and that people say one thing and others receive a different communication.

If you wanted to talk about the meaning of "myth" and its implications there is a poll specifically dealing with the opportunity, the partial results of which stimulated this thread. Here you can call anything you like "myth" and it will only support the OP.


spin

renassault

What gave him away? The tumor infected, twice the size of his upper arm, forearms?

renassault

An agnostic doubts the existence of God; he doesn't doubt the tools used to establish whether there is or isn't one, these being history and so on. So he either agrees that the methodology used by scholars shows the NT has myths, it doesn't, or it can't be determined. There are many conservative and non-conservative scholars who take the last option. That doesn't make them agnostics. I think that's what mountainman was saying.