mountainman

Ancient historians, for a start.

Antipope Innocent II

*Chuckle* Okay - list the professional ancient historians from accredited institutions who subscribe to the "Jesus Myth" idea. Take your time. :wave:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Antipope Innocent II,

Oh, I regard this as a misunderstanding. The statement that "His position is now that only two are qualified" was just meant in contrast to the original statement that "You can count the number of actual professional academics who give the "Jesus Myth" idea any credence on the fingers of one hand." The original statement left room for up to five professional academics, while the later statement was more specific and only named two scholars. I meant only that you had clarified your position from five possible ones to two actual ones.

As far as Price, the one who is left on your list, I must say that he is agnostic about there being an historical Christ. Therefore, I would suggest that he does not belong on the list either and it is more correct to say that there are no real scholars in the field believe in a mythical Christ.

As far as William Wrede, you are quite correct, he does not belong on the list. While he challenged certain aspects of the historicity of the Gospel Christ, he did believe in an historical Christ so I will take him off my list. Besides, he is a nineteenth century author, and I am restricting my lists to 20th century authors so that one cannot say that the Jesus Myth position was only held by 19th century writers.

The bad news is that I have found three more names to replace him, R.G. Price has recently written a book called "Jesus, A Very Jewish Myth" so he goes on my list. Livio C. Stecchini and Jan Sammer put forward the idea that Jesus comes from a play by the Roman writer Seneca. Their inclusion brings to 48 the number of writers in the past century who have supposed the Jesus character in the gospels to be entirely or mostly a myth. Here are the updated lists:

First List: Those with good academic credentials (although possibly not from relevant fields) who take the Jesus Myth position seriously:


1) Wells, 2) Price, 3) Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack, 19) Jan Sammer

Second List: These living writers with academic credentials that I am not sure about (but whose work may be just as important as the above) include:

1) Earl Doherty, 2) Richard Carrier, 3) Archaya S., 4) Joseph Atwill, 5) Ken Humphreys, 6) Harold Liedner, 7) Zane Winter, 8) Gary Courtney, 9) Michael Hoffman, 10) Max Rieser, 11) R.G. Price


Third List: These deceased 20th century mythicists with academic credentials (although possibly not relevant fields):

1) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 2) John (J.M.) Robertson 3) Bertrand Russell, 4) Joseph McCabe 5) Livio C. Stecchini, 6) Thomas Whittaker, 7) John E. Remsburg, 8) Arthur Drews, 9) P. L. Couchoud, 10) John Allegro, 11) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 12) Robert Taylor, 13) Joseph Wheless, 14) Peter Jensen, 15) Gordon Rylands, 16) Guy Fau, 17) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 18) Alvin Boyd Kuhn



Commuications includes rhetoric. Someone with a degree in communication could very possibly have taken a number of courses in rhetoric both ancient and modern. This would make someone especially acute in understanding the implications of the rhetoric in early Christian Texts. They would also possibly have studied in detail both production and distribution of various kinds of information. This would be quite relevant if it were the case that historical and fictional information followed different production and distribution patterns in ancient Roman times. They would be in a better position to know if the relevant material should be categorized as fiction or non-fiction than perhaps even ancient historians who have not studied such data.

In the case of Psychology, we have a field that investigates individual human actions and ideas in a variety of situations. While historians are generally concerned with mass social actions and the activities of governments, psychology offers important insights into a diversity of human motivations and desires. A psychologist will, perhaps, be better able to explain the motivations behind a certain writer's ideas than an historian or someone more proficient in an ancient language. Knowledge of human censorship mechanisms in the mind/brain would allow a psychiatrist to better understand when and why a writer is lying or covering up information.

So I would consider these both relevant fields to any inquiry concerning the Historical/mythical nature of the New Testament Jesus character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Good points. Thanks.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Magdlyn

Thank you, PJ. Accepted.

Magdlyn

Really? What "most people" have told you that they're fine with you putting words in my mouth?


I'm afraid the main picture I am getting is that you are angry. "Total and complete crap, who the hell, why the hell, what on Earth, wicked, evil, fanatics, zealots, blunderers!" Are you angry, or are you just Australian?

Your use of epithets, superlatives and "facetiousness" is getting in the way of my ability to carry on what should be a nice civilized conversation with you. Would you speak so rudely to us if we were face to face? Would you mind very much toning it down a bit? It's an interesting topic, but hard to follow when your use of words is something I'd expect in the 9th inning of a baseball playoff series game tied 2-2, bases loaded.

Magdlyn

Quite so. In fact, that was the new Xtian church's only claim to fame, that their dying and rising godman was a real live human being, unlike Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, et al.

Bingo. Saying the Emperor's Got No Clothes, Not Even the Speedo He's Parading Around in These Days, leaves all those "Biblical scholars" with a life of poverty and ridicule and maybe even worse.

andrewcriddle

IMO if one lacks even a very basic acquaintance with the original languages, then one is rather too vulnerable to what others tell you.

On the other hand, in a field where adequate translations exist for almost everything, I'm not sure that there is all that much advantage in having the level of fluency that enables one to translate at first sight a previously unknown text.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Good points.

Ben C Smith

Dionysus was regarded as one of the two (along with Hercules) archetypal deified humans. He was thought to have been born to a woman named Semele and to have operated in Thebes, Greece.

Whom do you have in mind as ancients who did not regard Dionysus as a real live human being (so much so that the real live humanity of Jesus would constitute a claim to fame over and against Dionysus)?

(I believe your statement is difficult with regard to Attis and Adonis, too, but I wish to stick to Dionysus because I know more about him than about the other two.)

Ben.