Toto

I think that P-Jay started with a different concept of mythicism, which surprised me because he has been a moderator on the JesusMysteries yahoogroup, and I thought that the whole question had been hashed out there, although I haven't kept up with the list very well.

In any case, the count of mythicists is sort of an argument from authority, or an argument from popularity, so I don't know what it proves in any case.

Antipope Innocent II

I'm not sure what concept of mythicism he "started" with, but if he's finished up citing people as Mythicists who clearly aren't and has been called on it, simply ignoring the posts that do so isn't exactly making him look any more credible.

Given that his list is (i) pretty short and (ii) filled with characters with theories that range from the amateurishly contrived through the totally far fetched and up to the hilariously absurd, I'm equally unsure what point he's trying to make.

Perhaps he's secretly trying to make Mythicism look bad. :huh:

mountainman

It is not being offered as "proof" as I understand things,
rather as an exploration of an alternative corpus of
"authority" on the question of christian origins.

We have been scholastically and academically attentive
to the one true authority of the HJ "Oath" for some time.

Perhaps other authorities should be consulted, as is the
normal modus operandi in inter-disciplinary studies and
research. Hence Philosopher Jay's compendium.



Noone needs "the argument from ridicule".
It invariably boomerangs back to the sender.
When was the last time you crossed the
coat-hanger Anti-Pope?


Best wishes to you both,



Pete Brown

Antipope Innocent II

I wasn't making any argument, just an observation. With some ridicule, of course. I find it hard to take theories about the gospels being based on "a mime play" very seriously. I can't get images of Mary wearing Marcel Marceau make-up and "walking against the wind" in downtown Jerusalem out of my head.

I cross it every morning and every evening Pete. Not that I can see what that has to do with anything ...

Toto

The argument from personal incredulity is especially unpersuasive. It may just be your failure of imagination if you can't imagine that the gospels started as plays (who said mime? although mime was an important part of the theater back then.)

Antipope Innocent II

That was simply an expression of my incredulity Toto. If you want to be credulous about such theories that would also be entirely your business and something you would be perfectly free to express.

Who said mime? Jay said mime:

If that cluster of astounding relevantions wasn't startling enough, he goes on:

Luckily he stopped there and thus avoided going on to tell us what she had for breakfast the morning she wrote this "mime play", how many freckles she had on her right wrist, her favourite colour and who her best friend when she was six.

Still, Xlibris has to make money somehow I guess.

Toto

I would advise you to read the book before you mock it.

Jeffrey Gibson

This ain't a failure of imagination, let alone an argument from personal incredulity, if one has even a minimal acquaintance with Hellenistic drama and especially with what typified and conventionally constituted the form, structure, and standard dramatic, metrical, dictional, and rhetorical machinery of the Greco Roman play -- including the Roman "mime" (burlesque).

To my knowledge, Jay -- who puts forward the thesis that the Gospels show evidence of first being a Greco Roman play (let alone one written, as he says, by a woman) -- does not or could be able, working as he does from an English translation of the Gospels, rather from the Greek texts of then, to recognize these features as Hellenistic dramaturges set them out even if they were there.

Jeffrey

Toto

If you wish to read Jay's book and discuss why he is wrong, you may start a new thread.

But since he is discussing the evolution of the story or plot line, and is not relying on a textual analysis, I am not sure how relevant this argument is.

Jeffrey Gibson

And I would advise you to become more acquainted than you apparently are with the structure, form, linguistic style, themes, topoi, and rhetorical conventions of greco roman dramaturgy before you recommend Jay's book as something one should read.

I trust you know that mimes were a sub genre of comedy, and that they (as all other plays of the period) were not -- and conventionally could not -- be written by women?

If so, doesn't this raise red flags over the "recommendability" of Jay's thesis?

Jeffrey